Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Armed Forces and Civil Society

Mr. John Bercow: What plans his Department has to maintain and strengthen links between the armed forces and civil society. [49574]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The armed forces already maintain strong links with the civilian community in a number and variety of ways, including the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. We wish, of course, to encourage and build on these links.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern, in all parts of the House and outside it, that the activities of the three cadet forces, and of the scouts, the guides and other community groups that use Territorial Army facilities, may be affected by plans to close and sell up to 170 TA centres? I trust that the hon. Gentleman is aware of and has anticipated that concern. Will he please tell the House today exactly what help will be available to ensure that those groups can continue their work as effectively as they have undertaken it in the past?

Dr. Reid: Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the concern and support—which he expressed—on both sides of the House for the cadets is shared by the Government. That is one reason why we shall give detailed scrutiny to any changes in the Territorial Army and its premises. We wish to ensure that the subject of cadets and their access to appropriate facilities is included with the other considerations that have been agreed between the Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations and the Regular Army. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not only one of our wide considerations but one of our primary considerations. That is precisely why we have made it plain that, although there is to be a reduction in Territorial Army numbers, we do not desire a reduction in cadet numbers. Indeed, we are increasing the resources to cadets.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: As a former Army cadet, I congratulate the Government on strengthening the role of cadets in the strategic defence review. May I have a commitment from my hon. Friend that, when the Government examine the future pattern of TA centres throughout the country, they will ensure that the need for the TA to back up the cadets is fully taken into account?

Dr. Reid: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are well aware of the valuable contribution that the cadet movement makes, not only to individuals but to society. Many young men and women are given opportunities that they could find in no other field of youth activity. I have personally witnessed young men and women in the cadets develop their character, ethos, discipline and initiative, and increasing opportunities are extended to them. It was for that reason that, during the strategic defence review, the Government decided that we would put more money into the cadets than previously.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said. However, to put this matter into perspective and to show its relationship with the decisions concerning the TA and the armed forces, can the hon. Gentleman say that the intention to provide new equipment and better standards and to give the TA more relevance will bring forth new money, which will bring about a real increase in resources for the TA? Or is the money to be found out of the savings resulting from the abolition of those units that will be scrapped?

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say that while we are reducing the numbers of the infantry, yeomanry and other regiments in the Territorial Army, we are increasing the global sum. I can assure him, first, that our intention at this stage, subject to detailed scrutiny—the final decision on units will not come out until the autumn—is that at least a proportionate amount will be spent on the TA. Secondly, the TA will have access to a number of specialisms in the Regular Army for which training was not previously available to the TA—for example, Challenger, the AS 90 and several other areas. The Territorial Army will not only remain a valuable element of our defence forces, but will be more relevant and usable in future than it has been over the past 50 years.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Persian gulf. [49575]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The recent revelation that Iraq had, contrary to earlier claims, weaponised the VX nerve agent shows that it has continued to lie about its weapons of mass destruction. We will keep the pressure on Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Savidge: Following the revelation about the deadly VX nerve agent, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will maintain all pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with relevant UN resolutions?

Mr. Robertson: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Words cannot adequately describe the deadliness of the VX nerve agent. One single droplet of VX is capable of killing an individual. The aerosol version of VX can kill countless thousands of people. The fact that it is now proven that Saddam Hussein had weaponised the VX agent is a salutary warning not just of his deceit, but of the threat that he represents to his neighbours and to stability in one of the most volatile parts of the world.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Government have been steadfast in their relations with Iraq, and I congratulate them on that. Has the strategic defence review announced last week made more difficult any response that we might wish to make—God forbid—against any further action by Iraq? In particular, has the reduction in fighters and ships made our response less likely, if one were needed?

Mr. Robertson: No; on the contrary. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his praise of the Government's robust stance in relation to Iraq's challenge to the authority of the United Nations. He speaks well on that account, and the House is united in its determination to make sure that Saddam complies with the UN Security Council resolutions.
The purpose of the strategic defence review and one of the key reasons why it has had the support of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the single service chiefs is that, as a consequence of the review, we will be much better able to deploy our troops quickly and safely to the trouble spots of the world and to sustain them when they are there. Therefore, tyrants such as Saddam Hussein should pay careful attention to the new capability that will be represented by our forces after the strategic defence review.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do we yet know who sold the VX agent to Iraq, or who sold Iraq the facilities to make it? Will the Secretary of State have a word with the German chemical companies Hoechst and Bayer, who might have known a great deal better?

Mr. Robertson: A lot of people bear responsibility for providing at an earlier stage some of the facilities that Saddam Hussein has used to create his capabilities. However, many of the nerve agents and chemical weapons were produced by him. I am concerned, not about raking over the past, but about making sure that in future Saddam Hussein is not able to produce such weapons of mass destruction, and that he keeps to the assurances that he has given that he has destroyed all those capabilities. He has not yet persuaded ambassador Richard Butler, the chairman of UNSCOM, that he has disposed of all those capabilities. Until he has given evidence of that, the sanctions regime stays in place.

Weapons Project

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If he will list each major new weapons project begun since May 1997. [49577]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Since May 1997, we have taken a range of important procurement decisions to ensure that the armed forces will have the equipment that they need. These decisions include the approval of major new projects for the replacement rocket for the guided multiple launch rocket system, the Hawk life extension programme, the successor identification friend or foe system and a new tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling.

Mrs. Bottomley: Arising out of the overall defence spending reductions in the strategic defence review, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what is the nature of the cuts that are planned in defence equipment spending over the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Spellar: The actual nature of spending on equipment is identified in the review. It covers a range of equipment areas, some of which have been maintained, some of which have been increased and some of which, as the hon. Lady knows, have been reduced. That is the pattern of the equipment programme as we look to reshaping the armed forces and their equipment for the new roles that have been identified for Britain in the world.

Mr. David Heath: In looking at new important projects, especially that for the two new aircraft carriers, does the Minister agree that security from attack, in this case from the Treasury, would be greatly enhanced if we had a firm starting date?

Mr. Spellar: The strategic defence review gives a very clear, firm base for the future equipment programme. That fact is recognised, not only widely in the House but by the armed forces and, equally importantly, by industry, which has confirmed that point very strongly. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have also announced an in-service date for the new carriers, which has been welcomed by the Royal Navy.

Mr. Robert Key: Ministers have told us that they want more armed personnel in the services and more equipment—some small and some big. How will they pay for that? The strategic defence review gives the figure of £685 million in the first year, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last week, in table A3 of his comprehensive spending review, that the real cumulative cut in the defence budget over the lifetime of this Parliament is £4.6 billion. Can the Minister confirm whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an unequivocal commitment to the construction of the two aircraft carriers?

Mr. Spellar: We are looking at 3 per cent. in three years. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that we are actually talking about an accelerated programme of estates disposal arising out of the freeing-up of resources. In the longer-term equipment programme, we are talking about the impact of smart procurement, which we have negotiated in consultation and in partnership with industry—something which the previous Government singularly failed to do. As a result, we shall use best practice in industry to ensure that we achieve better value for money for the taxpayer.

Fleet Submarines

Sir Sydney Chapman: Pursuant to the strategic defence review, if he will make a statement on the strategic and tactical roles of fleet submarines. [49579]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Royal Navy submarines will continue to play a vital role both strategically, in support of the deterrent, and tactically as part of any deployed maritime force. The introduction of the Tomahawk land attack missile later this year will provide a powerful additional capability.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Following the decision in the strategic defence review to cut the number of attack submarines from 12 to 10, can the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in the number of submarines? Will he also take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will commission all five new Astute class submarines?

Mr. Robertson: The purpose of the strategic defence review was to create a period of stability and to give some degree of direction to our armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman reads the review carefully, he will see that we intend to do precisely that.
The decommissioning of attack nuclear submarines will inevitably occur over a fairly lengthy period. Therefore, the step-by-step reduction in the fleet from 12 to 10 is deliberate in order to establish a level of 10 that will remain for a considerable time. The order for three Astute class submarines will be maintained, with plans to order a further two early next century. I believe that that amply demonstrates the Government's commitment to this valuable capability.

Mr. John Hutton: May I warmly welcome the Government's decision to order an additional two Astute class strategic submarines nuclear? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that this will be welcome news in my constituency, where the first three of those new submarines will be built. Those are very modern, capable and effective ships, which I am sure will add considerably to the operational capability of our SSN fleet. However, can my right hon. Friend be more specific about when he expects the contracts for these further two additional Astute submarines to be placed?

Mr. Robertson: The shipyard in my hon. Friend's constituency has a proud record in this regard. I am glad that the orders for the three Astute class submarines that have been underlined by the strategic defence review will be carried forward in the spirit of the smart procurement initiative, which we have designed for our future equipment.
The previous Government's plans for a further two Astute class submarines will still remain. They are, of course, for the beginning of the next century. We are reducing the number of SSNs—attack nuclear submarines—but with the introduction of the three Astute class submarines we shall be increasing the capability of the fleet quite dramatically.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree the reduction in the number of

submarines in the fleet places a premium on the effective utilisation of the existing fleet, and in particular requires careful programming of refit schedules? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to confirm the strategic importance of both Rosyth and Devonport as centres of excellence, both now and in the future, for the refitting of submarines? Will he also take the opportunity, given the fact that the Scottish National party's views on submarines have been splashed all over the Scottish newspapers both today and yesterday, to give his estimate of how many submarines will be available to Rosyth in the event that the SNP achieves its will and creates an independent Scottish navy?

Mr. Robertson: I confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question about the importance of the two dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth in dealing with the refitting of our nuclear submarine fleet at the present moment. The decommissioning of HMS Spartan in 2006 will dovetail with the entry into service of the first of the Astute class submarines. HMS Spartan's refit formed a major element of the dockyard refit programme announced by my predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo. Its cancellation would have incurred substantial compensation payments, for which the Ministry of Defence would have received no benefit. We carefully programme our refits to make sure that we maintain military capability at the maximum possible level.
As for the synthetic indignation of the Scottish National party, SNP Members did not bother to turn up for the NATO enlargement debate on Friday, confirming their image as the neutralist nationalists. To argue for more nuclear submarine refits at Rosyth is to characterise the SNP's internal self-divisions, its internal hypocrisy and its policy of separation. Ripping Scotland out of the United Kingdom would lead to the loss of thousands upon thousands of defence jobs.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Putting the Scottish National party to one side, perhaps to where it belongs, may I say to my right hon. Friend that nuclear submarines are a familiar sight in the Firth of Clyde? May I also say to him that the code of practice on the passage of these submarines in and out of the Firth of Clyde is reasonably satisfactory? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has no plans to berth these vessels in Holy Loch? Will he tell me how far the cleaning programme has proceeded in that loch and whether the Pentagon will pick up some of the bill?

Mr. Robertson: I am glad to join my hon. Friend in setting aside the SNP, which I am sure the Scottish people will do as well. I was on Holy Loch on Saturday and, should anyone get the wrong impression, I was on a car ferry at the time. I am well aware of the issue of the cleaning of the loch and I can confirm that there is no intention by the Government of basing any of our submarines there, rather than at Faslane. The clean-up of Holy Loch is essential, and the majority of local opinion was in favour of it, but that is a responsibility of the Government, not of any foreign Government.

Mr. John Maples: Can the Secretary of State say why he has decided to cancel the planned refit of HMS Splendid and go ahead with the


planned refit of HMS Spartan? Could it have anything to do with the fact that HMS Spartan is to be refitted at Rosyth in Scotland and HMS Splendid was to have been refitted at Devonport in England?

Mr. Robertson: No, it had nothing to do with that. The trend away from large-scale open-ocean warfare means that we believe that we can reduce the SSN fleet over the next few years from 12 to 10. It therefore made sense to decommission HMS Spartan in 2006, following a refit, to allow that to dovetail with the entry into service of the first Astute class submarine. In doing that, I shall have maintained the capability of the fleet, with the Astute class submarines coming into service; avoided the waste that would have been represented by the compensation that would have been due to fall to Rosyth dockyard had we cancelled that refit; and been allowed to keep to a commitment made by Mr. Michael Portillo at the Scottish Grand Committee in Cupar, Fife, to put the refit of HMS Spartan into Rosyth as its last nuclear refit.

Mr. Maples: But Mr. Michael Portillo was not going to decommission HMS Spartan in 2006. The Secretary of State says that the decision makes sense, but the purpose of these refits is to give the submarines an additional 10 years of life. We are surely spending £150 million to give that submarine an additional four years of life at the most, because he has already announced its decommissioning in 2005–06. Is not the real reason for the decision the Government's problems in Scotland? The taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill for £150 million of election expenditure by the Labour party in Scotland and to protect jobs in the Chancellor's constituency.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's great mistake is judging all other political parties by the low standards of the Conservative party and, especially, of the previous Government. There were perfectly good financial, economic and military grounds, as well as social and industrial grounds, for going ahead with the refit of HMS Spartan. We have kept to the commitments made by the previous Government and will maintain in service until 2006, when the first Astute class submarine comes into service, the capability that is offered by the SSN class submarine.

Falkland War Veterans

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What steps his Department is taking to help Falkland war veterans. [49580]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 July, as part of the strategic defence review, our plans to set up a veterans' advice unit within the Ministry of Defence which will help to address the needs of all veterans, including those who served in the Falklands campaign. When the veterans' unit becomes operational later this year, it will help to make it much easier for all veterans to receive the best help available.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be of assistance to all veterans. Falklands

veterans in particular are aggrieved on two issues, which were dismantled by the previous Government—stress management and the opportunity to revisit the Falkland islands. He will be aware of my constituent, David Brown, who still suffers from the traumas of the Falkland islands. Will my hon. Friend ask the unit to consider those two issues?

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we are to establish a veterans' unit, which is not only part of showing the commitment that we feel to men and woman who have served their country, but a long-standing demand of the British Legion and other interested parties. I commend them for the role that they have played.
On Falklands veterans, my hon. Friend would like to know that, as far as possible and within our power, we assist those who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He has previously raised the case of one constituent and knows that we take this matter seriously, but he will understand that it is not possible to promise that we will give all service men free flights back to the areas in which they served. There would be financial difficulties with that, and difficulties with Treasury guidelines, and the system might be open to abuse. I regret that, in the case that he raises—I believe that he raised it in March 1997—we could not provide a free flight back to the Falklands for his constituent, but we shall certainly look at the request for general assistance for Falklands veterans.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Although a veterans' unit within the Department is to be welcomed, would not Falklands veterans who are still serving, and those who did not serve in the Falklands war but have learnt its lessons, say that sufficient helicopters are crucial for amphibious operations? Would not they be concerned by her Majesty's Government's decision not to implement the proposed purchase of a second tranche of Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters? Will the Merlin still be a contender for the replacement of the HC4 Commando Sea King helicopters of the Royal Marines—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That question does not relate at all to the original question. Perhaps the Minister will reply to a little of it, but certainly not to the parts that are not relevant.

Dr. Reid: How could I defy your instructions, Madam Speaker, when they were so charmingly put?
All those who supported our forces during the Falklands campaign, would be heartened by the emphasis that this Government have placed, arising out of our strategic defence review, on coastal operations and amphibious capability, which were so important during the Falklands campaign. They would be particularly heartened by our confirmation of the importance of a full brigade-sized unit of the Royal Marines proceeding with the helicopter landing platform, as well as an increase in the number of armed forces personnel. They will be heartened by the fact that the Government support strong defence in practice, just as they did in 1982.

Trident

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What is his current estimate of the cost of the Trident nuclear fleet. [49582]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The total acquisition cost for Trident is currently estimated to be £12.52 billion, 90 per cent. of which was already committed before this Government took office.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State regret that the strategic defence review did not include a discussion about the future relevance of a nuclear force? Does he recognise that the massive cost of running and decommissioning Trident could be better spent on other things, and that we would stand in better stead in opposing the development of nuclear weapons around the world if we got rid of our own nuclear weapons?

Mr. Robertson: I cannot regret not doing something in the strategic defence review when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I were elected on a platform of keeping the Trident system. My hon. Friend and I were both returned to the House on exactly those grounds. I direct my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to the section of the strategic defence review on the deterrent and to the supporting papers in which we have published unprecedentedly open and new information about the nature of our deterrent. I also direct his attention to the substantial reductions that will now take place in our nuclear capability as a result of the defence review. We shall have half as many available weapons, with 30 per cent. of the explosive power that we had at the end of the cold war. That maintains the deterrent at a credible minimum level, but makes a sizeable contribution towards disarmament, of which we are all in favour.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the reduction in the number of nuclear warheads on the Trident submarine fleet. As a mere woman, I still cannot see what earthly use we have for 200 nuclear warheads, let alone 300, but the reduction is welcomed anyway.
What exactly is the current position of the talks on nuclear disarmament? Is there any hope of the Government pushing them on and getting them restarted?

Mr. Robertson: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, but we welcome diverse views on all these issues. We want to move towards the reductions for which there is general welcome throughout the House. I hope that people will make more of that than of the opposite point of view. I remind the hon. Lady that when the Government came to power, they immediately ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty, and that this country was among the first of the nuclear powers to do so. As part of the strategic defence review, we are making a contribution to the fissile material cut-off treaty, which is a substantial move forward. The changes that we have made in the configuration of our nuclear deterrent in the new strategic circumstances will, I hope, act as an example to other countries in the world—especially to the Russian

Parliament, which has so far failed to ratify the START 2 treaty. If we had ratification of that treaty, we could make sizeable steps in the overall reduction of strategic warheads that we all want.

Mr. Keith Simpson: We intrude at our peril in the private internal disagreements among Labour and Liberal Democrat Members over our nuclear deterrent. The Conservative party has always believed in a robust nuclear deterrent, and has been prepared, over many years, to put money into that. The costs of Trident are bound up in the comprehensive spending review. I should like the Secretary of State to return to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). The cut in the overall defence budget of £685 million will, according to the Government's paper on the comprehensive spending review, in fact be £1.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. Can the Secretary of State explain that, or is there once again a Scottish connection?

Mr. Robertson: It is difficult to comprehend why the Opposition cannot understand that there will be a real-terms reduction in our defence budget of 3 per cent. in the next three years, which is an average of 1 per cent. a year. The Conservative party was responsible for cuts in the defence budget of 23 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. In cash terms, the defence budget will go up by £1.4 billion in the period covered by the comprehensive spending review. I understand why the Opposition are sensitive about this issue, especially as the Conservative party spokesman seems to be suggesting that we should spend more money on defence, whereas the shadow Chancellor regularly pops up at the Dispatch Box and argues that public expenditure should be reduced. Is the Conservative party in favour of massive increases in the defence budget?

UK Reserve Forces

Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the role of the UK reserve forces. [49583]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Members of the reserve forces contribute a great deal to this country in many ways, but their principal role is to reinforce the armed forces on operations. They do that as individuals and as formed units, and they will continue to play a key role in the future.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he pay tribute to soldiers of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment in my constituency, who are currently on duty in South Armagh, together with the 1st Battalion of the RGBW? Will he confirm that, under the strategic defence review and the 17,000 reduction in the Territorial Army, there will be no abolition of cap badges? If that is to be his pledge, will he confirm that he will not achieve it by reducing battalions such as the 2nd RGBW to a company strength?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's local TA regiment and to all members of the Territorial Army for the valuable service which they have given us in the past and which individuals are giving us at present


in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere. Part of the principles agreed between the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and the Regular Army is that the footprint throughout the country will have recourse, so far as is possible within the overall numbers, to a geographical spread of the TA and to the ethos and traditions of the individual units of the TA, which includes cap badges.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister agree that modernisation of the reserves is long overdue, and that one of the main reasons why it has not been undertaken before now is that the last Government—now the Opposition—made decisions on political rather than military grounds? Does the Minister also agree that an Opposition whose main contribution to today's exchanges has concerned cap badges display an appalling lack of knowledge and thoughtfulness?

Dr. Reid: I certainly agree that the armed forces were let down by, among other things, the fact that financial—and often political—considerations were the starting point from which earlier Governments embarked on their so-called defence reviews. As most people know, those reviews were written on the back of an envelope, including a figure upfront that Ministers wanted to achieve.
Yes, we believe in the Territorial Army, to such an extent that we want to make it more relevant and usable in the future. Although I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about cap badges—I think that the ethos and tradition of the Territorial Army matter—the truth is that the world has changed, and that, if it is to prove as valuable to us in future as it has in the past, the Territorial Army must change with it.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The largest regiment in the Army, which comprises mainly part-time volunteers, was not mentioned in a recent strategic defence review. When can we hear a statement on the future role and strength of the Royal Irish Regiment?

Dr. Reid: Consideration of the Royal Irish Regiment was not omitted. Indeed, it is one of the few regiments that I visited personally, in order to have discussions with both full-timers and part-timers in Northern Ireland. During my visit, I had fruitful discussions with both officers and men.
Detailed announcements about all the reserve forces and the Territorial Army will be made in the autumn. However virtuous the case of any particular unit may be, I do not think that it would be fair or reasonable to start picking off individual units, or making decisions about them, before the review reaches its conclusions.

Diversification

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for defence diversification. [49584]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We received some 80 responses to our consultative Green Paper on defence

diversification. We plan to publish our response, and announce our decisions on the way ahead, in a White Paper in the autumn.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that we have a history of failing to capitalise fully on the fruits and benefits of defence research? If we are to realise such opportunities in the market across the world, should we not get defence diversification up and running as soon as possible? Jobs rely on it. I am particularly concerned about my constituents who work at GEC in Rochester. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of when the agency will be set up?

Mr. Spellar: We expect the agency to be set up not too long after the publication of the White Paper in the autumn. We are working very hard on the mechanics of it.
My hon. Friend is right. Too much defence diversification has resulted in the creation of jobs abroad, rather than in this country. We need to speed up the dissemination of techniques and technologies into civil industry, and also to encourage feedback from civil industry into the defence community. We believe that the defence diversification agency will play a significant part in achieving that.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that premises are a major issue in defence diversification? Earlier answers given by his colleagues today have referred to an accelerated programme of defence disposals, and to the importance that he and other Ministers ascribe to social factors. Does he recognise that there is enormous concern in my constituency about his ministerial colleagues' continuing and repeated failure to answer questions about the future of staff college Camberley?
Over the past year, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, has repeatedly said, "Decisions will come shortly; decisions will come shortly." In a written answer that I received as recently as last Thursday, I was told that no decisions had been made, and that no proposals had even been put to Ministers. Proposals have been put to Ministers, not least by me. Jobs are at stake, and that prestige site must not be wasted or sold off for housing.

Mr. Spellar: As someone who raised that issue a number of times with the previous Government when we were in opposition, I can only say that the phrase "brass neck" comes to mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocation of the staff colleges is a complicated issue. We inherited a major problem and, as the hon. Gentleman also knows, under the previous Administration, some decisions were changed within six weeks or so. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is working hard to try to get a satisfactory solution. Representations from the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members with people from the staff colleges in their constituencies will be welcome.

Army Manpower

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What proposals the Government have for reducing overstretch in the Army. [49587]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): We are firmly committed to reducing overstretch in the Army. The strategic defence review contains both organisational changes and establishment increases of 3,300 Regular Army personnel to address overstretch. It is a difficult task, but we have made it a priority and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, as of today, there are 1,500 more soldiers in the British Army than there were when we took office on 1 May last year.

Mrs. Gilroy: Can my hon. Friend assure us that some of the extra manpower will be put towards the support services, which were so badly hollowed out by the previous Government?

Dr. Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be done, both in the Regular Army and in the context of the role that we envisage for the Territorial Army. We want to do that in all three services, and that includes attending to the gapping in the Royal Navy, in which I know my hon. Friend also has a particular interest. I do not underestimate the problems that we inherited from the previous Government, but it is Government's first duty when young men and women join our armed forces to make sure that the manpower is suitable for the task. The Government are committed to doing that, and that is why I am pleased to announce that there are 1,500 more places in the Army than when we came into government.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The Minister's answer related to peace-time overstretch, which is extremely important. My question is about overstretch in terms of our involvement in a war that turns out to need more forces than are currently available. How quickly could we regenerate reserve combat units complete with company commanders, squadron sergeant-majors and so on?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is the darling—sometimes the Captain Darling—of the Territorial Army. I know that he is discomfited by the reduction in numbers, but we envisage a better, more valuable, more relevant, usable role for the TA as part of our force for the future. We do not envisage putting a heavy division in the field without the TA being called up. We are prepared to show the political willingness to involve it in our planning assumptions, and will call up the Territorial Army at a lower threshold than any Government have done for 50 years. We will pass to the TA training and skills on some of the equipment that has previously been monopolisedo by the Regular Army. Of course, we have a range of readiness to meet modern threats rather than the threats of the cold war. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that readiness consideration was a central part of our strategic defence review and that we are satisfied that it can be met in the regular and in the reserve forces.

Training

Ms Christine Russell: What plans his Department has to improve the extent of accredited training in the armed forces. [49588]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We announced as part of the strategic defence review our new learning forces initiative, which

will further improve education and training provisions in the armed services and help service people to gain recognised qualifications.

Ms Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving education and training will not only make the armed forces a more attractive career proposition but help to ease people's transition back into civilian life? In the next few weeks, thousands of young people will receive their GCSE and NVQ results and will be thinking about their options, so will he say exactly what vocational qualifications the Ministry is considering?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The services offer a rewarding and excellent career to many school leavers, and we want to ensure that as many as possible of those young people and their advisers have the relevant information. The fact that people can gain transferable, portable qualifications is not only an important recruiting commodity: it adds to the quality of our trained manpower and womanpower. The learning forces initiative will add a new ingredient to the package that is already on offer; people will be able to build up learning credits while they are in the forces, which will allow and encourage them to go into higher and further education when they leave. We believe that the package will be attractive not only to those who are in the services, but, perhaps more important, to the high-quality young people whom we want to come into the forces in the future.

Defence Establishments (Shoeburyness)

Sir Teddy Taylor: How many letters he has received from the public about the future of defence establishments in Shoeburyness. [49589]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Since May 1997, the Ministry of Defence has received seven letters from members of the public about the future of defence establishments in Shoeburyness.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As there is real concern in Shoeburyness, which is an area of high unemployment, that a change of policy by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will cause even more unemployment, is the Minister or one of his colleagues willing to come to Shoeburyness to discuss with the trade unions and management the future of the ranges, particularly as decisions seem to have been delayed time and again?

Mr. Spellar: I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has discussed this subject with the hon. Gentleman and that he has received representations from Members of Parliament and from the trade unions at all three of the ranges—Eskmeals, Pendine and Shoeburyness. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the final considerations are being made. Demand has lessened and there must be a balance between the various ranges, but I assure him that the representations that have been made by Members of Parliament, the community, local councils and the trade unions have been given serious and weighty consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Privy Council

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What plans she has to review the modus operandi of the Privy Council. [49610]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Prentice: That surprises me, as the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will obviously change, as it will have to determine the vires of Acts of the new Scottish Parliament. What is the point of the secrecy of the oath that is sworn by Privy Councillors, and how does such secrecy square with the Government's commitment to freedom of information? Is it not about time that we shone a light into this secret corner of the constitution?

Mrs. Taylor: If my hon. Friend tabled a question asking for the text of the oath, I should be happy to answer it.

European Parliament

Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will take steps to improve liaison between officers of the House and officers of the European Parliament. [49611]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recently reported on the scrutiny of European business. One of its recommendations was for a national Parliament office in Brussels, the practicalities of which are being examined.

Miss McIntosh: What knowledge of languages do our officers have to operate such an office? What will their duties be? Will they monitor and scrutinise legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament?

Mrs. Taylor: Such issues were considered in the discussions held by the Modernisation Committee and the Select Committee on European Legislation. It was thought that it would be helpful if hon. Members had a representative in Brussels to be the eyes and ears of this House to give early warning of matters that might arise. It is early days in terms of considering the practicalities of such an approach, but the idea seems promising and therefore worthy of further examination.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Should we not be our own eyes and ears? Sending functionaries from here and accepting functionaries from Strasbourg is one way forward, but it sounds like a new set of jollies for the boys. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extraordinary number of delegations of Members from other national Parliaments who come to the House, so interested and enthusiastic are they to learn about new Labour, the third

way and what we are up to? Is not the real answer to empower more of our own Members of Parliament to go to Bonn, Paris or Rome to build contacts between the national Parliaments and, when Switzerland joins the European Union, to Berne as well? Should not hon. Members be making contacts with other national parliamentarians to increase oversight of what happens in Europe?

Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in such matters, that he endeavours to enlighten conferences in other countries about the workings of this Parliament, and that he is very keen to improve the relationship between hon. Members here and Members of other domestic Parliaments in Europe. It assists the House if we use all our ideas as to how we can keep in touch with Brussels. I agree that we need to examine the way in which hon. Members can keep in touch. My hon. Friend has made interesting suggestions to the Modernisation Committee and others.
I think I am right in saying that the majority of hon. Members do not use the single entitlement that they have to visit European institutions. Perhaps if more did so, there would be a greater understanding in this House of European institutions and a greater understanding there of the concerns of British Members of Parliament.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Lady reject the negative and insular views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and encourage the greatest possible communication between this Parliament, which is very efficient, and the European Parliament, as that might be a way to persuade the European Parliament to stop the scandalous abuses of public money involved in its organisation? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the organisational expenditure of the European Parliament is an insult to democracy?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's question goes rather wide, but, on principle, it is important that we all have as much information as possible.

Parliamentary Calendar

Mr. David Hanson: What representations she has received on her proposals for modernising the parliamentary calendar. [49612]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I know that the Modernisation Committee will be grateful to all hon. Members who have responded to the invitation to comment on the proposals for modernising the parliamentary calendar. I know that the Committee will welcome any further representations from hon. Members who have not replied up to now. So far, I have received more than 40 letters from hon. Members and several letters from members of the public. They are generally supportive of the proposals contained in the Government's memorandum, although some are opposed and others argue for far more radical steps to be taken.

Mr. Hanson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals that she has put to the Modernisation Committee are greatly welcomed by many hon. Members? Will she further confirm that not one moment


of parliamentary time will be lost by the proposals, but that the time will simply be reorganised so that many hon. Members who, like me, represent constituencies 225 miles from the House can get home at midnight on Thursdays rather than at 3 am on Fridays?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that no parliamentary time would be lost by the proposed changes. The idea behind the proposals is to allow Members of Parliament to adopt a more balanced approach to the very many competing demands on their time, and being in their constituencies on Friday is a priority for many hon. Members.

Sir George Young: Many hon. Members will have seen the Mail on Sunday yesterday in which the right hon. Lady set out her philosophy on modernising the House of Commons. Will she confirm that it is her intention to make progress on the same basis as the Jopling Committee, namely by co-operation and consent?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee, knows that it has attempted to reach consensus on the way forward. He will also know that, like most Committee members and Ministers, I think that it would be best for us to adopt such proposals on an

experimental basis, so that all hon. Members can judge whether they are an improvement on current arrangements.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend intending to consult all the Departments of the House before she goes ahead with the changes? It would be unhelpful if the House were seen to be the type of employer that does not consult before changes are made with all the Departments that would be directly affected.

Mrs. Taylor: I have already written to the Chairmen of all the relevant Committees, who supervise the Departments of the House. We are waiting for their responses.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the President of the Council aware that the letter from you, Madam Speaker, in response to the Modernisation Committee's ill-thought-out proposals has been an inspiration to many hon. Members, and that it has the whole-hearted support of many who rather think that the House's traditions far outweigh any scramble to implement poorly thought-out reforms?

Mrs. Taylor: All hon. Members are entitled to ensure that their views are known by the Modernisation Committee. I hope that many hon. Members will follow the right hon. Gentleman's example and ensure that the Modernisation Committee is aware of their views.

Speaker's Chaplain

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make before the Deputy Prime Minister's statement.
Hon. Members will be aware that Canon Donald Gray is to retire as Speaker's Chaplain on 31 October. I can now inform the House that I have appointed as his successor the Rev. Canon Robert Wright, vicar of Portsea and honorary canon of Portsmouth cathedral, who is shortly to become a canon of Westminster. Canon Wright will take up his duties as Speaker's Chaplain at the beginning of November.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks—and, I am sure, those of all hon. Members—to Donald Gray for his exceptional contribution to the life of the House of Commons during his 11 years as Chaplain. He has been a true friend to very many of us—certainly to me—and his warmth and compassion, as well as his learning, have been a feature of Parliament for the past decade. He and Joyce will take with them the gratitude and good wishes of the House in their well-deserved retirement.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Integrated Transport Policy

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on transport policy. A White Paper, "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" is published today and has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It delivers on our manifesto commitment to develop an integrated transport policy, to assist mobility and economic growth, to fight congestion and pollution, and to help create a fairer society. It will widen choice, providing people with the real alternative of a decent, modern and reliable public transport system.
The public mood has changed. The previous Government's Green Paper, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Select Committee and our own consultation exercise have all demonstrated that there is now a consensus for radical change. Everyone now agrees that no change is not an option.
Privatisation and deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s produced a public transport system that was fragmented, lacked investment and attracted fewer passengers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am merely repeating the record. Privatisation and deregulation led to more congestion and did more damage to the environment and public health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Last year, two records were broken: a record 1 million rail passengers complained, and a record number of rail millionaires were created. What an indictment of privatisation. Since deregulation, the number of bus passengers has fallen by 25 per cent. Car drivers sit in traffic for hours. The Confederation of British Industry complains of the £15 billion cost of congestion. Walking and cycling are often unpleasant and dangerous. Many women fear for their own safety on public transport, and for the safety of their children going to school.
If we do nothing, traffic will grow by 30 per cent. in the next 20 years, with more traffic jams, longer rush hours, and a 10 per cent. increase in CO2 emissions, at a time when the Kyoto accords require us to cut emissions.
The core of our approach is integration—to allow people to switch from bus to train and from their cars to park and ride. It is also about integrating transport with environment policy and land-use planning, with our economic, health, and education policies and with the creation of a fairer society.
People need better information to achieve a seamless journey. Today, I can announce a revolution in information to the passenger. We will introduce a comprehensive integrated national public transport information system by 2000. [Laughter.] Obviously hon. Members have not tried ringing transport inquiries to find out how to use the public transport system. It is generally agreed in the country at large that new public information systems are absolutely necessary. A passenger will be able to access information on all forms of transport to a single point by phone, teletext or internet.
Through better planning policies, we can reduce the need to travel, as we are showing with our millennium village in Greenwich. [Laughter.] Planning is an essential part of transport, as the previous Administration failed to understand, which is why our transport system is in such


a mess. Homes should be close to shops, schools, health and other services, so that people can walk rather than drive. We will revise planning guidance to take account of our new integrated transport policy. We have given more emphasis than any previous Government to making it easier to walk and cycle. I endorse the target to double cycling within six years.
Rural areas have their own specific needs. Seventy-five per cent. of rural parishes now have no daily bus service, thanks to a deregulated bus system introduced by the previous Administration. We have already committed £150 million to improving rural public transport, doubling the support in many rural areas, and proposals are in the final stages of preparation.
Better public transport—particularly rail and bus—is the cornerstone of our approach, and a better, modern, reliable bus represents the best opportunity for leading a renaissance of public transport. Quality partnerships which already existed under the previous Administration in a handful of local authorities have proved popular with the public. Passenger numbers have increased by up to 40 per cent., and fewer people are using their cars. I want to see more such partnerships.
The bus must have priority on the road. That will lead to faster, more reliable services, which attract more passengers. Stiffer penalties and tougher enforcement will deter bus lane road hogs.
We can transform the economics of the bus industry by adding just two extra passengers per bus journey, and thereby improving revenues by more than £400 million. More revenue will lead to more investment, better buses, more frequent services, and proper training and conditions for bus drivers. The one I met yesterday could benefit from a visit to charm school—[Interruption.]—as could a number of Opposition Members—probably the same one that I attended.
Bus operators must help to spruce up bus stations, provide better information at bus stops, and co-operate on ticketing with other bus and rail operators. In addition, the Government are prepared to give statutory force to exclusive quality contracts on particular routes. The days of the cowboy bus operators are over.
For too long, the bus has been seen as a workhorse. I would like it to be a racehorse—[Interruption.]—and a first-class one, too. [Interruption.] You will have to control the zoo, Madam Speaker.
Today, I am issuing a challenge to bus companies and manufacturers to create a new bus fit for the 21st century in design, operation and comfort. We need buses that are more accessible to elderly and disabled people, and to mothers with children and heavy shopping.
Transport policy needs to pay special attention to the 13 million people in homes without a car. Pensioners in particular rely on good-quality services at affordable prices. I am therefore pleased to announce for the first time a national minimum concessionary fares scheme, guaranteeing at least a half fare for every pensioner in Britain. That will benefit 3 million pensioners who are currently denied the benefits of such a scheme.
Our proposals for railways are in line with the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the response to which I am issuing today as Cmnd 4024. There is going to be tougher regulation of train

companies. Spearheaded by our new strategic rail authority, enforcement will be speeded up and strengthened by tougher penalties. If companies continue to fail to honour their contractual obligations to the passenger, they will lose their right to operate. In the short term, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will remain the operator of last resort, and British Rail will retain the ability to be a train operator. The functions of both will become part of the strategic rail authority.
The rail industry needs a stable framework to deliver long-term investment and better services for passengers. In the next six years, 17 of the franchises come up for renewal. Some train operators want early renegotiation of their franchises. I stand ready to consider their requests, but I should make one thing clear. If any application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, improvements for rail passengers and value for the taxpayer. An independent rail regulator will remain, but there will be clear demarcation between the regulator's responsibilities and the new responsibilities of the strategic rail authority.
Railtrack will be tightly scrutinised to ensure that it invests sufficiently in the rail infrastructure. The rail regulator has been critical of Railtrack's investment record as recently as last week. I intend to see that those criticisms are addressed, and that matters are corrected. I have asked the rail regulator to carry out a review of the level and structure of charges, including mechanisms for payment. We will set up new rail funds with £100 million to lever in additional leading-edge investment in the rail network.
The House is aware that the National Audit Office condemned the scandalous sale by the previous Government of the rolling stock leasing companies, known as roscos. I asked the rail regulator to investigate the failure of roscos—he has completed that—and to negotiate a new concordat with them on the leasing and re-leasing terms of rolling stock. If that is not effective, I will consider bringing roscos under formal regulation.
Rail freight is a better environmental option, and we endorse the rail freight industry's target to double traffic carried by rail in five years and to treble it in 10. We have already doubled rail freight grants. We will increase them by a further one third this year, and extend them to coastal shipping. It is my intention to reinvest the proceeds from the part sale of National Air Traffic Services in transport improvements, such as a Euro-gauge freight rail system from the channel tunnel right through to Scotland, if terms can be agreed.
This Government will invest in rail freight, although we recognise that more than 90 per cent. of goods will continue to be moved by road. From 1 January next year, European law requires us to raise the maximum gross weight of lorries from 38 tonnes to 40 tonnes. I am concerned about the cost of road and bridge maintenance with an increase in five-axle heavy lorries, and therefore want to give the strongest possible encouragement to the use of six-axle lorries. I have therefore decided to allow 41-tonne lorries on six axles from January 1999. I am not convinced of the case for 44-tonne lorries, but I will ask the new commission for integrated transport, which I will describe later, to review the evidence and make recommendations.
Everyone now acknowledges that we cannot build our way out of congestion; the days of predict and provide are over. We will give top priority to maintaining and


managing roads. I propose to transform the Highways Agency into a network operator rather than simply a road builder. I am pleased to announce the signing today of an historic agreement between the Highways Agency and Railtrack to work together on developing integrated solutions.
We will allow the Highways Agency to operate a number of pilot charging schemes, and use the income stream to reinvest in the road network. For example, I am looking at how to redirect toll revenue from the Dartford crossing to improve traffic management on the M25.
Like millions of my fellow drivers, I know that sitting in traffic jams at all times of the day robs driving of its convenience. It is not pro-car to allow congestion to escalate. It is not pro-car to allow smog and pollution to increase. The car driver is breathing air around three times more polluted than the air outside. The most anti-car policy is to do nothing. Being pro-public transport does not mean being anti-car.
I am pleased to announce today a new deal for the motorist. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh about improving conditions for motorists, but many complain bitterly, through the motoring organisations, that there are actions that the Government could take, although the previous Administration failed to do so. The Highways Agency will have specific responsibility to reduce delays. We will establish regional traffic control centres to help traffic flows and improve information to motorists about roadworks and delays. We will also act against cowboy wheel dampers, and we will use the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's databank to provide better information and protection for drivers when buying used cars.
As school holidays begin, everyone notices the difference in traffic. Parents driving their children often short distances to school increases congestion significantly at peak times. Some schools have already shown that safe and secure routes, with adult supervision, can reduce unnecessary car use. Parents welcome that, as an extension of choice and a safer alternative.
No transport issue is more important than safety. We intend to issue a new road safety strategy and targets later this year. In response to the Select Committee, we propose to carry out a thorough review of the institutional arrangements for transport safety. [Interruption.] The reviews are being carried out by the health and safety bodies, and they need time to conclude them.
The key to the success of our new approach to transport is partnership. Let no one say that we are not putting our money where our mouth is. We have made a £1.7 billion increase in public investment for transport over the next three years, and we are setting up £7 billion-worth of public-private partnerships for the underground and a £6 billion partnership for the channel tunnel rail link, which collapsed under the previous Administration's negotiations.
Together with new revenue streams for local authorities, commercial freedom for local authority airports, and private investment in buses and trains, this represents the biggest ever investment in public transport. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we are doubling total transport investment over the next seven years.
Partnership will also be important at local level. Local councils will consult all the main interested parties to draw up local transport plans. The plans will set targets and identify actions to develop public transport, improve air quality, enhance road safety and reduce road traffic. This major new initiative will be backed by £700 million, which will enable the development of 150 local transport strategies over the next three years. There will be new powers for local authorities to levy charges on the use of congested roads and on workplace parking. Revenue from this will be used to improve local public transport and traffic management.
These will be local schemes decided by local people, defined by local needs. Proceeds will be reinvested in local transport through a ring-fenced fund. All such plans will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The White Paper establishes the principle. I intend to issue a consultation paper in due course on its implementation.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for having the courage to establish—[Laughter.] No other Government have been prepared to do it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having the courage to establish such a radical reform of public finances, allowing hypothecation of the income—something which was not even in the 1996 Green Paper, when the previous Administration discovered integration after 17 years of failure in transport policy. The Government are ending decades of under-investment, modernising our transport system, and investing for the future.
Transport must be publicly accountable. I intend to give real power to the passenger. There will be public hearings on rail and bus franchises; stronger bus and rail consumer bodies, joining forces with real powers; and a strategic rail authority with real teeth to improve standards for the passenger.
The White Paper is the start, not the end, of the debate. It is almost 20 years since the last comprehensive transport White Paper. In 18 years, the previous Government produced only a Green Paper on transport at the end of their Administration. The speed of change means that we cannot wait another 20 years. Hon. Members will appreciate that I have only touched on the main points of the White Paper, which covers all forms of transport. There will be a number of "daughter documents"—similar to today's rail document—on roads, freight, aviation, shipping and others.
Transport policy is not just a matter for Government. The debate needs the involvement of all sections of society. The Government therefore propose to establish an independent commission for integrated transport, which will monitor targets, provide a forum for debate, and make regular reports to Ministers, Committees and this House.
The White Paper is based on a real consensus for change. No change, frankly, is not an option. The country wants a better transport system which does not continue to damage our health, industry and environment. The country wants a transport system which improves the quality of life for everyone without passing on a poorer legacy to future Administrations—as the previous Administration did.
Radical change is necessary. The White Paper is about that radical change and how to achieve it. I commend it the House.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The White Paper was promised for the spring—it is true that


spring was late this year. It is also the case that the White Paper has been seen, apparently, by lobbyists, journalists, interest groups, local authorities, the world and his wife, but not by Parliament—but, then, the Government like Parliament to be in its place. However, I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of his statement—at 2.45 this afternoon.
Before the election, the Labour party said a great deal about transport. It promised immediate benefits, an immediate end to planning blight, and radical transport policies. Now the great day has come, and what do we have? We have extra taxes for road users, more regulation, more bureaucracy, and no improvements for the travelling public even promised until after the next election. What a wasted opportunity.
If that is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do after 14 months of dithering in government, 18 years fulminating in opposition, the £26 billion investment in roads that we left in place, the billions that our policies of privatisation and deregulation have brought into the system, the framework for transport integration laid out in 1996 and our changes in planning guidance, we might as well have been waiting until next spring—unless, of course, teeny-boppers and financial whiz kids overruled the right hon. Gentleman; perhaps we shall hear.
Given the importance of the White Paper in the right hon. Gentleman's own mind, I have a number of questions. Will he confirm that the increase for transport announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week was creative accounting within his existing departmental budget, and that the real increase was not the £600 million announced by the Chancellor—that is per annum—but £7 million, as calculated by the British Roads Federation?
Is it not the case that the so-called extra funding of £1.8 billion is made up largely from the proceeds of reducing subsidies to the privatised railways? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm his conversion to the cause of that privatisation, given the benefits that our policy is affording him?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he means by British Rail "retaining the ability" to be a train operator? Is he saying that British Rail has the right to compete for franchises, for example?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he plans to remove all the subsidy to London Underground by the year 2000? Will he tell the House what assumptions he has made about the likely private investment in London Underground by the year 2000? What contingency plans has he made in the event of those plans failing, and what would be the consequent effect on fares and overcrowding?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he intends to fund his plans for improvements in transport infrastructure by imposing more taxes on road users? By how much does he intend that taxation to increase, and how soon will the consequent improvements be in place? How will he guarantee 100 per cent. hypothecation of those taxes, and what system will he put in place to ensure transparency? Can he guarantee that the Treasury will not take its slice of the taxes and charges by imposing VAT on top?
The right hon. Gentleman made rather little of this in his statement, but I refer him and the House to the very useful graph in paragraph 236 of last week's comprehensive spending review, where the new income

assumptions are clearly shown. Does he accept that higher taxation for motorists will disproportionately affect women, the elderly, people with disabilities and people in rural areas, all of whom regard the car as a necessity, and for all of whom safe and secure travelling by car is a major consideration?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be an exemption from workplace parking charges for health and education establishments? What other exemptions does he plan? How will the new income streams generated by the new taxes and charges on motorists affect his Department's assumptions for the distribution of local authority finance?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, during the past 15 years, there have been massive improvements in the manufacture of cleaner cars? What plans has he to encourage further improvements on the previous Government's record of a 25 per cent. reduction in vehicle emissions during the past five years?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Road Haulage Association, the increasing differential between United Kingdom and continental diesel prices will lead to the loss of 26,000 UK jobs in this Parliament, and what does he intend to do about it?
I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement on rail freight and his tribute to the performance of the privatised companies involved. I hope that his appreciation will further encourage his conversion to the cause of privatisation.
How is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal on land use planning compatible with his wish that 2.2 million new homes be built in the countryside? Should new homes be built so far from the jobs and services on which they depend?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now be specific with the House and with the nation? How does he propose to measure the success of his policies? Will he set targets for the overall reductions of traffic growth, the increase in train and bus travel and the number of journeys made by cycle and on foot, and how would he monitor and enforce those targets?
The White Paper has been leaked, hyped and, my word, oversold. It promised action. It is delivering more taxes, a phone-in opportunity, more regulation, a new commission, a new authority, 152 new transport committees, some regional transport centres, a shower of documents, several pilots and—of course—two reviews. It owes nothing to Labour's pre-election promises or, perhaps, even to the right hon. Gentleman's views. It owes everything to focus groups, dithering, interference from No. 10 Downing street and confiscation by the Treasury, and it confirms that, in last week's spending announcement, the right hon. Gentleman was the loser, and so were the travelling public.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) will be aware that it was correct for me to give her a copy of the statement three quarters of an hour before the statement was to be made in the House, and that I acted appropriately.
The right hon. Lady complained about the long wait for the White Paper. I explained to the House that it was right and proper for it to be published after the comprehensive spending review and the conclusions on transport. It is a


bit much for her to criticise me, given that her party was in power for 18 years and produced only a Green Paper on transport. After a little more than 12 months in office, I have produced a Green Paper and a White Paper. That is an acceptable speed for dealing with a matter as important as transport, especially when compared with the Conservatives' record.
The right hon. Lady complained about the changes that we intend to make in order to achieve an integrated transport policy and find new revenues for it. That was the obvious conclusion not only in her Government's Green Paper, but from our own observations and discussions during consultation. The policies that she now rejects were summed up in her Government's Green Paper in 1996, which stated:
The Government will therefore discuss with the Local Authority Associations and other interested parties how best to take matters forward on these topics, with a presumption in favour of introducing legislation, in due course, to enable congestion charging and area licensing to be implemented, and is prepared to consider Local Authority Associations'
with all their transport committees
arguments on the taxation of private non-residential parking.
That was after 17 years of a Tory Government. If there was ever an indictment of a policy pursued by the Administration, it was their own conclusion—the same as we have arrived at—that it is time for change, and that no change is not a way forward.
On the proposals for charging and for swinging to public transport, the same consultation paper said that the objective of any future transport policy—which the previous Government did not have an opportunity to implement, having lost the election—was to persuade people to use public transport more and to use their cars less. Charging, about which the right hon. Lady complains so bitterly, was to be an element of that policy.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady's point is correct. We will have to find new income streams. For her to complain that the resources of £1.7 billion are now reduced to £7 million, on the advice of a PR agency, is a bit much. I bitterly regret the comments about my White Paper. No PR agency has had access to this White Paper. That was a story in the press. There is no evidence. I feel very strongly that the first body to whom I speak about the contents of the White Paper should be the House of Commons.
I regret the leaks that may have occurred in other cases, but, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, the main discussion has been about the table in the comprehensive spending review, which clearly showed extra new forms of income. That was stated, the press speculated on it, and there has been much argument and intelligent discussion about the implications of those charges.
I can assure the right hon. Lady that there will be a consultation document to examine how they might apply, who will be exempt, and whether charges will apply to hospitals and such places. There are major questions to be answered. The House will properly expect the Government to produce a consultation document. Of course I will do that, as I said in my statement.
With regard to British Rail and the arguments about privatisation and the use of resources, about £1 billion was spent in preparing for rail privatisation. The loss of

those public assets, sold to the private sector, turned people into millionaires. Under the previous Administration, the subsidies given by the state in public service obligation payments rose from £1 billion to £2 billion. The private sector received twice the subsidy that the previous Government were prepared to give British Rail, and, having been given twice as much subsidy, of course it would appear to do better.
The freight industry is another example. I inherited a deal—which, unfortunately, I could not stop—whereby the previous Administration sold off the railway companies, gave a £250 million dowry along with that sale, and guaranteed that there would be no charges to travel through the channel tunnel until 2005. If those concessions had been given to the state sector, it would have been able to offer increased freight services.
A prejudiced Administration's loaded game against the public sector led to a transport policy that saw fewer goods carried by rail, more people travelling on congested roads, a worsening environment, and all the other problems that we have highlighted in our criticisms of that Administration.
The shadow Secretary of State referred to transport services in rural areas and for the disabled. She should bear in mind the fact that a third of people in this country have no access to cars; their only option is public transport. Under her Administration, public transport services were reduced and made less available, and prices increased far more than those associated with car use. Those people paid the penalty for the previous Government's failed transport system. In those circumstances, there is no reason for us to offer any apologies about these matters.
I think that the commission for integrated transport could examine the targets that the shadow Secretary of State highlighted. Those targets include measuring the reduction in car use, and calculating how many more people use public transport and how many would take up cycling opportunities. Those are the sorts of targets that should be established, assessed every year and reported to the House in order to gauge the Government's effectiveness in implementing the White Paper and the integrated transport policy. We will be measured on the success of our policies, and we are prepared to be so.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: You have no targets.

Mr. Prescott: Targets have been set for greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 gases. We are setting targets for cycling and for a reduction in car use. The consultation documents will establish those targets in the transport plans.
As for the transparency of those plans, the shadow Secretary of State will be aware that local authorities already issue transport policies and programmes, in which targets between local and central Government have been agreed for a long time. We shall ensure that there is decent transport for everyone. The reactions so far, particularly from the press and the public at large, show that the time for change has arrived—and we intend to lead it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time in 18 years that a Government have set down an integrated, sensible and responsible transport policy? Is he aware also


that the fact that he inherited such chaos and fragmentation, yet has come to the House with an imaginative, sensible plan for the future, is a great credit to him and to his commitment?
We shall expect the strategic rail authority to be much more responsive to the needs of the customer, and we welcome the extra funds for rail freight. Will it be possible to formulate soon a policy for aviation, which is fundamental to the economic benefits of this country? Many people in rural areas who are currently extremely badly served by all forms of public transport will have listened with astonishment to today's performance by the shadow Secretary of State.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and her support. I am particularly grateful for the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee's work on the strategic rail authority and other transport matters. My hon. Friend knows that we have published today a Command Paper in response to her Committee's work. Our White Paper reflects the unanimous opinion arrived at in the Committee, across party lines, about the way to improve the railway system. Those ideas involve the strategic rail authority, and I am grateful for that support.
Aviation and airports are an important issue, involving the development of open skies in Europe, the recent negotiations between ourselves and America culminating in the British Airways-American Airlines deal, and ongoing discussions regarding terminal 5. Some fundamental issues must be decided, many of which are influenced by European regulations and negotiated bilaterally between countries. We intend to deal with those matters and follow them up in the forthcoming document on aviation and airport policy.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches is breathtaking, given that the previous Conservative Government were the Administration that delivered petrol price increases and a cut in the road programme, but no practical action to help motorists and others get from A to B.
As for the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement, perhaps, unlike the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I shall reserve my judgment on its overall impact until I have the chance to read the full document, which is lengthy. However, there seem to be some missing issues.
There is no real action to tackle the self-interests of the out-of-town super-stores. There are no parking charges for them, despite recommendations from the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It seems that there is no action to change the company car tax system, which currently rewards the gas guzzler for ever more miles and penalises those using public transport. Above all, there is no target for traffic reduction, either year by year or as an ultimate objective, although the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be one. If there will be one, will he tell the House what it will be, so that we can judge him against it as he invited us to do?
Is the Deputy Prime Minister able to announce a review of the Government's own use of cars by Departments, not least by Ministers themselves? Indeed, are we to anticipate, as I hope we are, charges both for Ministers and other Members for the free parking that takes place right here in the heart of central London?
May we anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman has secured a legislative slot for action on these matters, especially on congestion charging and business parking, which were promised to local authorities, and without which they will not be able to take forward local transport plans that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about? After all, it was the previous Conservative Government who last proposed them, back in 1996. If we do not get these measures in the next legislative timetable, it will not be until the new millennium that any action begins to start. In that case, what is the difference from the Tories?

Mr. Prescott: Liberals are always holier than holy, aren't they?
A number of the questions that have been asked by the hon. Gentleman are under review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he wants to look at company car tax. He thinks that it is a crazy way of encouraging people to drive cars to get the allowance, and to drive greater mileages than necessary. That is under review.
As for the target reduction to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we have already given draft guidance to local authorities about that. Nationally, we wanted to be sure about our negotiations in Kyoto. Thankfully, under the presidency of the British Administration, we were able to secure not only the Kyoto agreement but the Brussels or Luxembourg agreement. Our target now is a 12.5 per cent. reduction.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Traffic.

Mr. Prescott: I know. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not made the connection. Exhaust gas comes out of a car, and if there are fewer cars moving, there is a reduction in gas emission. Targets for cars and reductions are an essential part of the process. By the end of the year, we will be producing a sustainable document setting out what contributions can be made towards those ends. There will be variations from town to town. There should be discussions with local authorities rather than a blanket target.
I encourage everyone to read the White Paper and to come to a judgment later. I hope that people will do precisely that. As for legislation, it is for the legislative committees to determine the priorities of legislation. I cannot say any more on that. The House can be sure that the White Paper has a demand on the legislative programme, and we intend to make that the position.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does the Secretary of State wish to come back?

Mr. Prescott: indicated dissent.

Madam Speaker: No—take another opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman has answered a lot of questions already.

Mr. Peter Snape: I shall be as helpful as ever, Madam Speaker.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on what, I know, is for him the culmination of many years of enthusiastic work in this area of policy. May I press him on enforcement of bus priorities? My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to enforce the law on bus lanes, but there are other matters, such as parking and loading and unloading at bus stops. Does he intend to press the Home Office to allow local authorities to be responsible for this area of enforcement? As he says, they are to keep the money, anyway.
Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the temptation to allow 44-tonne lorries on to Britain's roads, something which the Conservative party would have done had the nation been unwise enough to re-elect it last May. Does he agree that those lorries, which are the heaviest, are the most subsidised by the community, do the most damage to our roads, and directly oppose and compete with long-distance rail freight? For those reasons, they should be resisted.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments and can confirm that we are discussing with the Home Office precisely how to deal with people who disobey the regulations and enter bus priority lanes, causing great difficulties and delaying buses. Such people are much resented by other motorists who stay in the correct lane and observe the law. We are considering many penalties in respect of these matters, and, with the Home Office, we hope to make a statement shortly.
On 44 or 41-tonne lorries, I resisted the arguments, and I do not think that the case has been made that the number of lorry movements would be reduced by moving to 44 tonnes, but I wanted to signal that 41 tonnes was more than I was expected to do in respect of the European regulations. I hope to encourage a move to six-axle vehicles, which are less damaging to the roads; maintenance bills are massive, so it would be more helpful if we did that.
I am quite prepared to leave my mind open and to see what the report from the commission for integrated transport says on whether the balance between rail and road can be achieved by moving to 44-tonne lorries, but let me be frank—I want more to go on rail. That would give the rail industry a number of years to reach the targets that it has set out and which I have endorsed, without being undermined by the challenge of the 44-tonne lorries.

Mr. Eric Pickles: On dedicated revenue streams, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that all the money will be ring-fenced and that it may be applied to transport schemes, and not be siphoned off by the Treasury? Will he also make it clear that his Department will not make assumptions about revenue support grant and take sums equivalent to that revenue away from local councils?
Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the impression he gave that the previous Government were in favour of taxing workplace parking? Their Green Paper clearly stated:
The Government would not favour allowing the taxation of private non-residential parking.
Will he make that absolutely clear?

Mr. Prescott: No. I made it clear that private non-residential parking will be subjected to review in the consultation document—these are charges to be taken into account. On whether that income would go directly to one source—local authority transport plans—all charges are subjected to value added tax and other taxation arrangements. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have not yet learnt that they imposed that, and that the charges that the Conservative party brought in subject them to tax.
In these arrangements, hypothecation means directing that money to transport improvements. I do not envisage that to affect other local authority transport expenditure; this is additional money, but I shall want to know what are their plans for transport policies and programmes, which they have to agree with me before they can even get to the stage of raising money and agreeing the priorities of expenditure.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I congratulate the whole ministerial team on the vision in the White Paper? There is a problem, however: in the dark years of Conservatism in the 1980s, when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, almost the whole of Britain's bus manufacturing capacity was destroyed, including the Leyland Bus plant in my constituency, which was able to produce almost 3,000 buses a year. With Volvo's recent decision to place bus orders with a manufacturer in Poland, there is almost nothing left of the United Kingdom's bus manufacturing capacity. Can we have a strategy to rebuild Britain's bus manufacturing industry? Perhaps it might return to Workington one day.

Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. One of the casualties of the privatisation and deregulation of the bus industry was continuity of investment. Buses got older because company owners found it more profitable not to invest in new ones, but to pay off the debts of purchasing the company. That led to such an uneven demand that the bus industry collapsed. Indeed, we have effectively seen the destruction of the bus manufacturing industry in this country.
However, there is still some manufacturing left, and I should like to see that built on. I look forward to a future in which the transport industry is geared towards assisting our manufacturing industry by providing new investment. Those are the resources that I have talked about, which are embodied in the White Paper.

Mr. Peter Luff: Although I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's conversion to the merits of rail privatisation, I wish that he had said a little more about the record growth in passenger numbers on the railways since privatisation. May I ask him about roads? As a result of the transport supplementary grant settlement, will there be any money for local bypasses, such as the urgently needed Wyre-Piddle bypass in my constituency? Will he tell local authorities that environmentally unsustainable new settlements for commuters in the countryside will no longer be tolerated?

Mr. Prescott: Did the hon. Gentleman say "Why a piddle?" bypass? [Laughter.]
We shall change the priorities to ensure that many bypasses are built so that villages are safer and healthier places in which to live. Improving the roads programme


will be a priority. Next week, a statement will be made about the roads programme, which will be relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question.
I am not a convert to privatisation; I still believe in a publicly owned, publicly accountable system. Once we have secured the investment for the channel tunnel rail link and the underground, those will return to public ownership.

Mr. Geraint Davies: In welcoming the ring fencing of money raised from roads and parking charges to fund local transport improvements, may I ask my right hon. Friend carefully to consider the taxation of air traffic pollution—both air and noise pollution—and ring-fencing the proceeds to local public transport schemes? For instance, as air traffic from Gatwick and Heathrow grows, my constituents in Croydon are paying the price of worsening air and noise pollution. They would welcome new investment in public transport.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about air traffic pollution. It is a matter we want to look at in our review of aviation policy. However, any changes to the fuel used or to air traffic pollution internationally requires international agreement. We shall deal with that point in our paper on aviation.

Mr. John Gummer: So that we may know how much new money there really is, will the Deputy Prime Minister say by how much the rail transport subsidy will be cut—how much he will save by reducing it—how much of that will be spent on his public transport programme, and what proportion of the extra money to which he refers that represents?

Mr. Prescott: For the reduction in subsidies, we shall have to wait until the franchises are renegotiated, which some franchisees are now asking for. In some cases—as in the case of Connex—it is clear that they want more subsidies. Renegotiation of some of the franchise agreements may be completed before their seven years are up. At the present stage, we envisage a considerable reduction—some £1 billion—in the privatisation fund. The fund started at £2 billion, and I think that it went down to about £1.6 billion, so we envisage a further reduction in those payments.
However, even if those targets are achieved, any money will go straight back to the Treasury rather than simply into transport, which is why the changes we have made are extremely important. The new streams of income that we have introduced will come directly to transport. It is like saying that savings are being made. The Conservatives doubled the subsidy to underpin privatisation, and the state sector received only £1 billion. That was hardly an example of good management of resources by the previous Administration.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly on his announcement about concessionary fares. May I be a bit parochial for a moment? He referred to the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and the use of toll charges to maintain traffic management of the M25. Does he agree that it would be unfair if only the Dartford-Thurrock crossing users paid the bill for M25 traffic management, given that many low-paid people on the north banks of Kent and the south banks of

Essex use the crossing to get to work? Should not traffic management costs be met by everyone who uses the M25, including those who live in the rich, leafy lanes of Surrey and elsewhere?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend may have a point. We shall discuss that matter with the various bodies. There is a massive flow of traffic on the M25, and it could do much better if better management techniques were used. That costs money, and it is one way of using some of the resources. As we have made clear in our discussions with the Highways Agency, the possibility of other forms of income remains open.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Deputy Prime Minister is to be congratulated as, he has concentrated on the chaos created by motor cars. We particularly welcome his statement about concessionary fares for pensioners, which he referred to as a "national" minimum concessionary fare. Will it apply to the nation, or just to England and Wales?

Mr. Prescott: This is when I call a taxi! The national concessionary fare will apply to England and Wales. I do not think that it will apply to Northern Ireland, but I am not sure. The right hon. Gentleman has caught me out, so I shall write to him.

Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the regeneration of recycled land in north-west Kent, which includes my constituency, will result in up to 50,000 new jobs and 20,000 new houses. That will increase transport needs. Will he be able to assist transport projects, such as the Thames Gateway metro and the Kent Thameside transit system, in alleviating some of the traffic problems that will be generated?

Mr. Prescott: We are considering a number of improvements in the transport corridors. We have already announced investment in the underground and in the channel tunnel link, and the Minister of Transport will be making a statement about road priorities in the south-east. It is an important area, and there has been a tremendous growth in transport. We must get more people in the south-east to change from their cars to public transport. Public transport must be reliable, and the only way to achieve that is to give it the priority that I have talked about in the White Paper.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman talked about using the White Paper to create a fairer society. He also said that people must come to a judgment about his White Paper, and that he wanted to ensure that he put his money where his mouth was. Does he agree that his proposals on workplace charging ensure that taxpayers' money—motorists' money—is being bitten off by the mouth of the Humber?

Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with the facts of the matter. The previous Administration agreed that such charges should be considered. The difference is that I have got them hypothecated: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has got the shadow Cabinet to agree to establishing a new principle of hypothecation. We have announced extra


money for the channel tunnel link, investments, and changes in the Treasury rules. Those measures will provide a considerable amount of money for the transport system.

Mr. Clive Efford: In an attempt to prevent the occupiers of the 20,000 new homes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) from driving through my constituency, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on dedicated bus routes and the improvement of bus links. May I draw his attention to the extension of the Jubilee line to north Greenwich, where there is a major arterial road? That will provide a rapid transport link. We need to link bus routes with the London underground network to reduce car use in south-east London. Other than the bus and the car, there is no alternative to the Connex network, which is already overcrowded at peak times.

Mr. Prescott: We must give considerable attention to the ways in which we can make existing capacity work more effectively. I have agreed to the £35-million extension of the docklands light railway to the airport. The number of people travelling on it will increase from 1 million to 3 million, and the time taken to get from the airport to the centre of London will be reduced by almost half. It will reduce congestion on the extraordinarily expensive Limehouse link, which cost £250 million for one mile. We should give priority to linking existing systems and to obtaining new investment.
On my hon. Friend's point about the Jubilee line, my first priority is to modernise what we have rather than to consider further extensions, although we are prepared to examine the priorities involved.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Deputy Prime Minister referred to an increased use of park-and-ride schemes. Can he give us a categorical assurance that such schemes will not be set up on green-belt areas—I am thinking of, for instance, the proposed scheme in Rawcliffe—when other appropriate areas are available?
Have the Government had a chance to cost the impact on shops and small businesses of charging local residents for access to cities at peak time?

Mr. Prescott: Access and congestion charges will have to be the subject of a proper consultation document, and I have promised to produce such a document. As for park-and-ride schemes in green-belt areas, I am in a quasi-judicial position in that regard, and cannot comment. The hon. Lady's constituency, however, is near the city of York, where a scheme that I opened a few years ago when I was the Opposition transport spokesman has been highly successful. People can still do their shopping at supermarkets on the outskirts of York, leave their cars there, and catch buses into town. More and more people are using that scheme, which is an intelligent way of employing the park-and-ride system.
Planning inspectors have to make decisions about these matters, but, if there is a dispute, they are eventually referred to me.

Mr. Graham Stringer: In Greater Manchester, a combination of deregulation and

privatisation of bus services had, by 1993, led to an extraordinary situation: buses were creating more pollution per passenger mile than cars. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in conurbations such as Greater Manchester, the best way to get people out of their cars is to re-regulate the buses and invest in metrolink?

Mr. Prescott: The deregulated system—particularly in Manchester, where there was a massive conversion from the normal regulated service to a deregulated minibus system—created far more buses in the city, more congestion and more pollution. Frankly, it was a disaster. I believe that there is a role for a regulated form of transport, and what I call the quality contract. As I said in my statement, that is a possible way forward, and we are prepared to consider such proposals on a statutory basis.

Sir David Madel: The Government have just helped General Motors to retain its car plant in Luton, thereby saving thousands of jobs there and in the surrounding supply industries. Can I take it from that that the Government will build new roads in the south Bedfordshire industrial area in order to continue to promote economic growth and reduce congestion?

Mr. Prescott: A statement about roads will be made next week. It is obvious, however—"predict and provide" is part of this—that, while it is possible to build more and more motorways, they fill up as fast as they are built, creating even more congestion. The policy must be changed—a conclusion that the previous Administration reached in their Green Paper.
We are not suggesting that cars should be banished, or being hostile to the motorist; we are asking motorists to use their cars less, and public transport more. Elsewhere in Europe, where there are more cars per head, people use them less, because there is a better transport system. In Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds and Brighton, all of which have given priority to public transport, ridership has increased considerably, and people are using their cars less. That is what we are seeking to achieve.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the bold and imaginative way in which he has tackled difficult problems. I approve of charges for congestion and for parking in city centres, but what will be the mechanism for overseeing the way in which local authorities invest in public expenditure schemes? Will there be rigorous oversight, so that we receive value for money, and local authorities learn from one another's best practice?

Mr. Prescott: At present, our local transport plans must be agreed with central Government. Local authorities will have to talk to operators and, indeed, passengers: that will be the method of oversight and control. I do not want consultation to be limited to local government and operators; it should equally involve passengers, who sometimes have a different view even from elected councillors. I expect the plans that are agreed, and expenditure priorities, to be agreed with the community before coming to me. I shall measure them against the targets and guidance that I will provide, and local authorities will then oversee and implement the policy.

Mr. David Chidgey: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's self-confessed successful visit to a


charm school, will he have the good grace to acknowledge that I and my colleagues argued long and hard during the previous Administration for many of the proposals that he has presented? I welcome local transport packages. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he came to office and faced the shambles of the previous Administration's policies, only about a quarter of the qualifying local transport packages that met the Department's specifications were funded. Can he assure the House that under his plans, all those packages which meet his Department's specifications will be funded?

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the charming way in which he asked his question. I shall respond in my charming way.
I have advocated for many years the ideas to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I am pleased to be in a job where I can begin to implement them. However, Governments can implement only that for which resources allow. I have tried to find new ways of financing, even to the extent of getting changes for local authorities in the Treasury rules to allow greater flexibility to invest. The issue is not only the amount that I can find—almost £2 billion—but about finding new, agreed income streams. As I said in my statement, those new streams will be geared very much to public transport requirements.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that acid particle emissions from motor vehicles have done more damage to York Minster and the other historic limestone buildings in York in the past 20 years than has been caused in the previous two centuries? Is he further aware that measures such as the park-and-ride schemes introduced by York city council, and its traffic-calming measures and pedestrian and cycle

priority schemes, provide necessary alternatives to car use in York? Does he commend those schemes to other authorities?
My right hon. Friend will remember that, when the Conservatives were in power, they closed the York carriage works. Since the election, his transport policies have created a market for rail freight wagons, and a freight works has reopened in York. On Monday, the first freight vehicle will roll off the production line at the Thrall works in York. That shows that the markets, as well as transport specialists, approve of my right hon. Friend's policies.

Mr. Prescott: I was delighted by the opening of that plant, which was scandalously closed under the previous Administration, not because railway stock was not wanted but because they were not prepared to ensure that investment was available. If they had invested in rolling stock instead of using the money to meet the cost of rail privatisation, that plant could have been kept in being, but their ideological requirement was to privatise.
I welcome the advance in freight wagons by the English, Welsh and Scottish Freight Rail Company. My hon. Friend spoke about environmental problems and acid particles. York's excellent policy has not only improved buildings in the area but encouraged more people to cycle. Much more can be done to facilitate cycling, and I think that about 20 per cent. of journeys in York are undertaken in that way. I congratulate the Labour administration in York on its comprehensive policy on these matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on. There will be another important transport statement next week.

International Criminal Court

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
It has been the Government's policy to back the creation of an effective International Criminal Court. I am pleased to report to the House that in Rome on Friday, Britain was part of the overwhelming majority that agreed to set up such a court. It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against millions. The International Criminal Court will put on notice the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of the future that they may be held to account personally for their crimes against humanity. It will also offer justice to the victims who have no means at present of bringing their suffering before any court.
I ask the House to record its appreciation of the hard work by the British team through five weeks of difficult and intensive negotiations. Britain's firm support for the principle of an International Criminal Court and the leading role that was played by our delegation in brokering consensus contributed to the successful outcome of the Rome conference.
The result is a strong court with wide powers. It will have the power to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including crimes of sexual violence, such as the use of mass rape as an instrument of ethnic cleansing, as was practised in Bosnia. The conscription of children under 15 into military service will also be an offence liable to prosecution before the court.
The British delegation played a key part in securing a definition of war crimes that embraced internal conflicts, not only wars between states. That is of great importance, as most of the violence of the past two decades has arisen from internal, not external, conflicts.
The British team also took the initiative in proposing that the court should have power to order those who are guilty to pay reparations to their victims. That is a new power, which is not available to the tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It reflects the fact that those who abuse their power to commit crimes against others often also abuse their power to make themselves wealthy.
We consistently rejected attempts by other countries to give the court the power of the death penalty, and we were successful in maintaining a majority against any international body having the power to order the death penalty.
Much of the debate in the period running up to the Rome conference revolved around the independence of the prosecutor. I am pleased to report that the prosecutor will have the power to initiate investigations leading to prosecution on his or her own authority. States that are party to the treaty may also refer alleged crimes for investigation, but the prosecutor can take the initiative without waiting for such a referral.
From the start, our objective has been to secure maximum support for the International Criminal Court. To be credible, such a court must command substantial support in the international community. The final vote in

support of the court—120 votes to seven—exceeded our expectations. The large number voting in favour was, in part, a reflection of the comprehensive international presence at the Rome conference, which was brought about by the financial support that Britain and others provided towards meeting the attendance costs of 50 of the smaller and poorer states.
To build that overwhelming support, it was necessary to meet the concerns of a number of countries that supported an International Criminal Court in principle, but had reservations about the proposed procedures. In particular, it was necessary to agree that countries signing up to the court should have the right to claim immunity from prosecution for war crimes for up to seven years.
That immunity is time limited; it does not extend to the other crimes in the court's remit, such as crimes against humanity, and it can, in any event, be overridden by a Security Council resolution. It is much more restricted than the initial bid by a number of countries that wanted an indefinite right to opt out from any of the crimes in the court's remit. I understand the regrets of those who would have preferred that no such concession were granted, but I firmly believe that it was right to make a limited compromise to secure wider support for the court and thereby achieve greater credibility for its authority.
I am sorry that, at the end of the Rome conference, the United States felt unable to support the compromise proposals. I understand its concerns about the security of its service men who are posted abroad, but we believe that those concerns are misplaced. Britain, too, has a large number of service men in posts abroad, and we and other major NATO allies are satisfied that the safeguards that are built in to the International Criminal Court will protect our service men against malicious or politically motivated prosecution.
In particular, it is a clearly established principle that the court will be able to prosecute only when there is no remedy in national law. We are confident that we can demonstrate that there is a remedy in British justice—and, for that matter, in United States justice—for accusations that are made against our service men in good faith. The screening of cases by the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court will provide a safeguard against accusations that are brought in bad faith.
We shall continue, through close dialogue, to seek to bring our United States partners on board in support of this improvement to international justice, which has gained such overwhelming support from the rest of the international community.
Later this year, the world will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the universal declaration of human rights. There can be no more fitting way in which to mark that anniversary than for us to sign up to this agreement, which, for the first time, creates an international court to enforce the most fundamental of those rights. I hope that the support that the court will secure in the House will be as overwhelming as the support that it has already received in the international community.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I start by apologising for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is currently travelling back to this country.
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement. I particularly congratulate those diplomats and others who have successfully participated in the enormously complex process of establishing the permanent international court, not only in the past five weeks and in Rome, but during the ad hoc meetings and preparatory committee processes that took place under the previous Government. I also congratulate those NGOs that participated in the process, including the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which all made valuable contributions.
Those who commit the most serious crimes, which bring international revulsion, should have no place to hide, and the court represents a considerable step in the right direction. Despite the historic nature of the Foreign Secretary's announcement, many details remain matters of grave concern, on which I hope he will elaborate.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the fact that two of the five permanent members of the Security Council—the US and China—have not signed up to the court is a problem? Does he agree with the diplomats who have said that the court will not work effectively without US participation? Does he believe that that could weaken the court before it is even out of the starting blocks? What steps will he take to encourage countries such as India, Israel, the US and China to join us, and how will he bring those countries on board?
Although the court represents the right way forward, it will not come into being until the statute has been ratified by all the signatories. As that process could take many years, will the Foreign Secretary say when he proposes that the United Kingdom should ratify the statute and what steps he will take to encourage swift ratification by other signatories? What problems are created for the ratification process by the fact that the voting in the UN was by a non-recorded vote, in which countries did not have to identify themselves?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the position of Israel, which, for many years, has understandably campaigned for the establishment of such a court, but which felt unable to sign up to the final proposals? Does he agree with the Israeli Government that the clause introduced by Egypt and Syria would make the Israeli settlements the subject of prosecutions? Is that assessment of the clause accurate?
The Foreign Secretary will acknowledge that the establishment of such a court is only half the battle. He has dealt with the position on the death penalty and the welcome inclusion of reparations, but will he outline what sanctions and punishments he envisages will be available to the court following a successful prosecution? More particularly, how will any sentence be enforced and who will pay for any subsequent imprisonment of a convicted person or persons?
We welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurances that British troops will not face malicious prosecutions of the kind feared by the US—indeed, that was one reason why the US refused to sign up to the court—but what guarantees can he give us that that will be the case? What makes him right and the US wrong?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the court will be able to prosecute only in cases when crimes have been committed by a state that has signed the statute or when they have taken place in the territory of a signatory? Is it

not the case that that leaves the door wide open to those who commit crimes in countries that have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court?
Will the Foreign Secretary also comment on the provision that was dropped, whereby suspects who had taken refuge in a country could be extradited to face prosecution? Does that not mean that tyrants and butchers will still have access to safe havens?
We welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurances on the independence of the prosecutor, but does he agree that only judges with the highest qualifications, preferably in both criminal and international law, should be used by the court?
The court will inevitably be costly. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he pressed for the least expensive arrangements, consistent with the court's effective functioning, and say what provisions have been made for the associated costs?
Finally, I am sure that I speak for all parts of the House when I endorse the international decision that will ensure that no man is above the law. By creating an International Criminal Court, we hope that we can move towards a more humane and peaceful world in which there is no sanctuary for the despot, the dictator or the depraved.

Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. I shall of course pass on to the officials who worked so hard to secure this agreement the congratulations from the Opposition Front Bench, which are always very gratifying.
Of course, we will continue to work with the United States in particular to get it to accede to the new institution. It is early days yet in the signing process—indeed, it has been open for signature for only one day so far. I hope that the United States will, first, come to drop its opposition and, over time, recognise that it is in its interests to be part of such an overwhelming consensus in the international community.
The hon. Lady asked whether the court could work without the United States. The answer is yes, it can work. If 120 countries want to make it work, and if those 120 include three of the permanent members of the Security Council, it can work. However, everyone recognises—I am not going to deny it—that it would work much better if the United States were a supporter of the institution.
The simplest way to resolve the question of the clause proposed by Egypt, which caused Israel to withdraw its support for the court, would be for Israel to recognise that the continuing expansion of settlements in occupied territory is without legal basis and jeopardises the peace process. I very much hope that, over the years that it will take for an International Criminal Court to be brought into being, it will be possible for us to make progress with the peace process which will resolve that difficult and outstanding issue between Israel and its neighbours.
The hon. Lady also asked about costs. I can tell her that we sought a formula that provided the best possible way to distribute the burden of the costs of the court. That is why we achieved an outcome whereby the court will be part-financed by the states that accede to it and part-financed by the United Nations, especially in respect of the cases referred through the Security Council.
Of course, the court will not be cheap. The two tribunals on Rwanda and Yugoslavia have already cost $113 million in the current year, and they are relatively


limited in their application. This will not be an exercise that can be achieved for a small price, but I believe that a price is worth paying to secure this important development in international justice.
Yes, we are confident that our service men will be protected against malicious prosecution. If anyone is in any doubt about whether that confidence is well placed, I should say that none of our other NATO allies took the interpretation of the United States; and, like us, many of those other NATO allies have service men in foreign posts. We are all confident that we have achieved safeguards against malicious prosecution—some of them sought by the United States itself.
The hon. Lady also raised the territorial application and jurisdiction of the court. It is indeed the case that one of the tests of whether the jurisdiction of the court would apply is whether the country that contains the territory in which the alleged crime took place consents. In practice, it is very difficult to imagine the court operating on any other basis. It is hard to see how a case could succeed without access to the scene of the crime, and the court has no powers to try people in absentia, a legal principle which most hon. Members would support. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the court could proceed against existing tyrants still in power, but there is, of course, power for the Security Council, by resolution, to refer any country or individual to the court without any consent by that country or its Government.
On the qualifications of the judges, I am pleased to report that one of the important contributions made by the British delegation was to chair the working party on those qualifications. Our team did an excellent job in achieving an outcome that requires two thirds of the bench appointed to be drawn from judges who have experience of criminal trial work. We are confident that we have made the best possible provision to make sure that the judges are experienced and of a high calibre.
I deal finally with the question of ratification. This will not be a swift or fast-track process. We are now arranging to draw up the appropriate legislation, but that legislation will be complex. It is not legislation that I would dream of asking the House to pass in a one-day sitting, as happened with the landmines treaty, because I suspect that it will contain many clauses that will give lawyers many hours of fruitful debate as it passes through the House. Therefore, it is not something which the House should imagine will be rushed through; nor will it be rushed through in many of the other countries. That is why I hope—it is our intention—that we shall be among the first 60 to ratify. If we continue to have the Opposition's support, we might be able to ratify even sooner.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if we adopt too querulous a tone, we run the risk of underestimating the real achievement in the creation of the court? I share his satisfaction, especially in relation to the independence of the prosecutor, an issue on which I know that the British negotiating team, to which he has rightly referred in complimentary terms, pressed very hard in the final three or four days of negotiation. The team certainly deserves to be congratulated on that issue above all others.
I share the Foreign Secretary's disappointment with regard to the United States. I hope that there will not only be dialogue, but that he will impress on the United States the importance of a change of mind or, indeed, a change of heart.
On the question of immunity from prosecution for war crimes, which, as I understand it, runs for a period of up to seven years, am I right in saying that there will be no bar on investigation during that period, so that, on the expiry of such a period, any country that has taken advantage of the immunity may, in respect of war crimes, find that its citizens are liable to prosecution?

Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman uses his privilege as a lawyer to ask me a legal question that I cannot answer. I shall take advice on whether the court would have a retrospective character in line with the seven-year time bar, and I shall happily write to him on that point.
It is fair to record that the United States has for many years been at the forefront of the international community in expressing concern about rogue states and crimes against humanity practised by evil tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. I hope that once the issue is fully considered and the text is studied in Washington, the United States will recognise that the agreement fits with its world view and is something which it should support, not oppose.
I agree absolutely that one of the main gains in Rome was the securing of the independence of the prosecutor, which was by no means a certainty before negotiations began. Our overall judgment is that, with the exception of the seven-year time limit, we secured all our negotiating objectives. As a result, we have a strong and effective court, with much greater support from the international community than we had anticipated. I therefore share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that, although it is proper for the House to ask questions, we should not lose sight of the fact that the agreement is a great achievement which offers a major breakthrough in international justice.

Mr. Clive Soley: Many of my constituents will want to join in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his achievement—not least because some of them have fled from the very regimes that we are seeking to put in the dock. Over the years, so many of us have felt that a court of that nature is vital. Perhaps he will tell the United States that those of us who are used to seeing it acting as one of the leaders on human rights and the rule of law are saddened when we see it acting as a drag anchor on the very process that we all want to encourage.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point with great force and great eloquence. Those of us who have met those who have fled from such evil tyrants understand two things: first, the hardship that they often have had to experience; and, secondly, the real frustration at knowing that they have no ready legal remedy. We hope that legislation for an International Criminal Court will put paid to that vacuum. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the court would be much more effective if the United States were to recognise that such a court is entirely consistent with its own policy.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announcement, and pay tribute


to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)? Although she is not in the Chamber today, she has consistently campaigned—as long as I have been an hon. Member, and undoubtedly much longer than that—for war criminals to be brought before appropriate international tribunals.
May I also ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that I have tabled two written questions to him about the Nazi war criminal Aloïs Brunner—who was Eichmann's right-hand man; was responsible for many horrendous crimes against humanity, including the deportation and death of over 150,000 French jews; and is believed to be being harboured by Syria? Would he be a candidate for the attentions of the new International Criminal Court? If so, will the Government use their best endeavours to ensure that that monster is brought before the court?

Mr. Cook: There is already legal provision for those guilty of war crimes of a Nazi character during the second world war to be brought to justice. As the House well knows, Britain is at the forefront of insisting that those legal provisions should be honoured. I must be clear with the House—I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point—that, as a general principle, the International Criminal Court will not have a retrospective character. However, in future, it will be able to try those who commit crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. We hope that—by the very fact of its existence—the court will provide deterrence against such crimes, as tyrants will know not only that those whom they send out to commit such evil work may succumb to justice, but that they themselves may personally be held responsible.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I add my congratulations on the achievement of getting so many parties' agreement to the treaty? Did I understand the Foreign Secretary to say that the international court or prosecutor would not be able to trigger an examination of genocide, for example, in jurisdictions which have their own capacity to try war criminals? If in the 21st century there were to be another—if I may use this example—My Lai, would the state whose army committed such a massacre be able to say, "It's not a matter for you, international court or prosecutor. Our country has our own competence to deal with the matter"? Such a system would be a cop-out and ensure that there would not be adequate prosecutions, as happened in the case of My Lai.

Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall tiptoe very delicately round the very undiplomatic example that he offers, but take up the issue that he raises. The principle on which the court has been created is that of complementarity—where there is effective legal remedy at a national level for the offence that is under investigation, the nation state will be expected to act on it. I think that that is an important requirement of the nations that sign up to the International Criminal Court. We should not allow signature to the court to allow nations to abdicate their own responsibility in holding their nationals to international and domestic law.
The purpose of the International Criminal Court is to provide a remedy for those states that cannot or—in the case of a collapse of law and order, such as

occurred initially in Rwanda—are unable to bring their nationals to trial. Therefore, in cases in which nations cannot or—in the case of some other evil dictators—will not, the International Criminal Court provides a remedy. However, it is not a remedy which overrides the obligation of most states to execute their own legal procedures against those whom they have held to have committed a crime.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I echo the welcome for the agreement that has already been expressed by hon. Members and the gratitude to those who were involved in reaching an historical and very principled decision? I specifically welcome recognition of sexual violence and rape as a crime. Often, innocent children are born as a product of rape. Will the legislation contain specific provisions ensuring that there is representation for those children and for the orphans of war in any criminal proceedings that are brought? Those children are, above all, the innocent victims, and such representation would seem to be a vital part of looking to the future.

Mr. Cook: I welcome very much the support that the hon. Lady has offered both to the principle of the court and to that particular provision, which was strongly supported by Britain. I should not wish to prejudge a precise decision that may be made by the court, but I personally see no reason why—in those cases—orphans or children who are the products of sexual violence should not be legitimate candidates for reparation if that is ordered against those who are found guilty.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated—particularly because of the doom and gloom of a month or two ago about whether the conference would have any successful outcome. The conference has had a considerable outcome, for which the whole world should be grateful—despite the United States's distressing decision, which will alarm and puzzle its friends, not to sign up now.
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House precisely how he foresees the timetable? He has given some indication that the process will be somewhat long and drawn-out. However, how many states will have to ratify the agreement before it comes into operation? When does he expect legislation to be before the House? On the basis of his earlier comments, it seems likely that that will happen not in the next Session but probably in the Session after that. Is that correct? What does he think is the optimum date for establishment of the court?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is quite right to contrast the very successful outcome of the Rome conference with what he described as the "doom and gloom" of expectations for the conference. There was doom and gloom about the outcome not only a few weeks ago but up until about last Thursday. The achievement is quite remarkable tribute to the way in which the conference was handled in its closing hours and to the determination of many national delegations, including the British one, that it would be a success.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question about how many countries need to ratify for the court to come into force is 60. It will take some time to get there—I do not wish to mislead the House on that point—but Britain will seek to ratify as quickly as we reasonably can. That will require, first, drawing up complex legislation, and, secondly, providing adequate time in the House for the legislation to be considered. Whether we can do that in the immediate future is something to which all hon. Members can apply their mind and come to their own conclusion. However, I can give the House an assurance that we will do it as quickly as we can. I personally would expect Britain to be among the first 60 to bring the court into being.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The principle of the court is welcomed by both sides of the House—the right hon. Gentleman has already pointed out that the court's purpose is not only to punish but to deter. However, he said that the court may have to apply to the Security Council in dealing with countries that are not signatories to the agreement. Will such decisions have to be unanimous or majority ones? If they have to be unanimous, does he think that that requirement will impede the court's practical work in deterring the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of this world?

Mr. Cook: I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it will be by a majority, subject, of course, to the fact that there are five countries—of which we are one—that have a veto over any resolution. In practice, there has not been a problem in the Security Council in getting international agreement to establish special tribunals to consider war crimes in Rwanda and in former Yugoslavia.
Until now, we have lacked the mechanism by which to act on those resolutions, which is why, on each occasion, we have had to invent an entirely new tribunal with its own procedures and institutions. Now, we will have the advantage that the International Criminal Court will be ready to act on any war crimes referred to it by the Security Council.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his imagination in organising payment of travel expenses for some 50 of the poorest countries of the world? As a matter of curiosity, how much did we pay for that significant gesture? May I ask him about two further matters? First, will he reflect on whether the International Criminal Court would help in a case that has been raised with me by the Davidson family of Linlithgow—that of their cousin George Atkinson whose problems in Dubai have been outlined in four pages of this week's colour supplement of The Sunday Times? I use the case as an example of one in which an International Criminal Court could help.
Secondly, tomorrow night I have the good fortune to have the 15th Adjournment debate on Lockerbie. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could ask the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd),

who is sitting next to him, to explain whether the International Criminal Court could help us out of the impasse on Pan Am flight 103 tomorrow night.

Mr. Cook: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is that Britain contributed $100,000 to the UN trust fund set up for that purpose. I can tell the House that Britain was one of the biggest donors to that trust fund.
As my hon. Friend knows, I am familiar with the Atkinson case. I have been visited by his constituent who discussed it with me. We continue to be in close contact and to provide consular assistance and guidance. However, I am not clear whether anything in the Atkinson case would lend itself to an action before the International Criminal Court.
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am aware that he has an Adjournment debate on Lockerbie tomorrow night. I hope that he will accept that it is a matter that is also of high priority within the Foreign Office. Apart from the retrospective element, the case of Lockerbie is unlikely to come within the scope of the court because we have firmly taken the view that the International Criminal Court should not cut across crimes for which there is already adequate international treaty provision, and there is very satisfactory provision in treaty for action against terrorism. Unfortunately, in the particular case of Lockerbie, it is not possible to enforce those mechanisms because Libya flatly refuses to extradite the two people who ought to be brought to trial.

Mr. David Heath: May I whole-heartedly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement? May I press him a little further on the seven-year immunity? What triggers that time period? Is it the date of the crime or the date of the intention to prosecute? Which state claims the immunity? Is it the state in which the crime was committed, or the state whose nationals are accused of committing the crime?

Mr. Cook: My understanding is that the seven-year limit starts running from the point of accession to the International Criminal Court—in other words, when 60 countries have ratified it, any one of them could claim a seven-year period of exemption from any war crime, not a specific war crime. Of course, the exemption would lapse at the end of seven years, and the country concerned would fall fully within the scope of the court. It will be an exemption from prosecution in respect of its own nationals, wherever they might be; hence the concern of one other NATO ally—not the United States—to protect its service men by that provision. It is tightly drawn and limited. I shall not pretend to the House that we put forward that concession or that we would have wished to see it as part of a negotiating position, but it does not strike at the heart of the court and was well worth agreeing to in order to get aboard a number of countries that would not otherwise have supported it.

Ms Jenny Jones: I know that the Council of Europe made representations to the negotiating body that war crimes against women and children should be given particular recognition. That was done because of the evidence that came to light


after the break-up of Yugoslavia. My right hon. Friend has already said that rape will now come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Can he also confirm that women and children forced into prostitution and trafficked for that purpose will also come under the jurisdiction of the ICC?

Mr. Cook: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that enslavement is one of the crimes against humanity that come explicitly under the remit of the International Criminal Court, so enforced prostitution of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers will be prosecutable before the International Criminal Court as a war crime or a crime against humanity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Secretary of State, I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has decided to impose a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has one simple overriding purpose—to implement the Belfast agreement. The agreement was negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties and agreed on Good Friday. It was supported by more than 71 per cent. of voters in Northern Ireland in the referendum on 22 May. The Bill represents the triple lock—people, parties and now Parliament.
Despite all the achievements of recent months, years of division in Northern Ireland cannot be overcome at a stroke. We have been reminded of the human cost of such divisions in recent weeks. The dispute over the parade at Drumcree and the violence that surrounded it has left a dark, sad cloud hanging over Northern Ireland. The funerals of the three boys—Mark, Richard and Jason—and the anguish of their family are terrible reminders of the hatred and division that lurk not far away from all the hope and expectation that we have for the future. We have recently been reminded of that by yet another appalling murder—that of Andrew Kearney—but the Good Friday agreement showed that, despite divisions, the parties and people of Northern Ireland can agree and can find an accommodation between their different views and beliefs and begin to chart a non-violent route into the future.
The Bill is all about implementing the agreement in full. We have had to fill in a number of practical gaps that were left by the agreement. In doing that, we have had the benefit of consultations with all the Northern Ireland parties. It is crucial that the momentum of the talks, the agreement, the referendum, the elections is maintained.
The agreement sets a tough timetable. The Bill has been prepared in record time, and I should like to express my appreciation to the civil servants who have worked so hard and to both Houses for facilitating the programme for the Bill when there are so many other important matters to be addressed.
There will, no doubt, need to be Government amendments to the Bill, mainly as a result of the urgency with which it has been prepared. As with previous legislation under the agreement, we will be flexible and sympathetic to other amendments intended to improve the way in which the Bill reflects what is in the agreement. However, I repeat what I have said in the House before; we cannot rewrite the agreement.
The agreement and the Bill look forward to a new future for Northern Ireland where all relationships are based on consent and mutual respect; where the people of Northern Ireland and their leaders take responsibility for their own government and their future; where government


is an exercise not in domination, but in partnership; where all parts of the community work together to solve problems that affect everyone and where all the people—north and south on the island of Ireland and, indeed, among all these islands—can work together for the mutual benefit of all.
The Bill implements the agreement. It is a substantial piece of legislation, and I should like to highlight some of its main features. The first two clauses rightly put the principle of consent at the forefront of the Bill. Whether Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom or become part of a united Ireland is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. The key principle of consent is enshrined in the Bill and has been endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic.
Clause 3 provides for devolution once
sufficient progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement".
That is a judgment for the Secretary of State. In making it, I shall consider whether the Assembly, in its shadow phase, has made the necessary preparations; that all the necessary Ministers have been selected; that the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council have met in shadow form; and that the initial six cross-border implementation bodies have been identified so that they can function from the day the powers are transferred.
The Assembly has already made a start. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have been elected and have been tasked by the Assembly to come forward over the summer with proposals on much of the preparatory work. Our aim is to achieve the transfer of powers early in 1999. Clause 4 deals with subject matters that may be devolved to the Assembly. Excepted matters, in schedule 2, cannot be devolved. They concern, for example, the Crown, foreign affairs, defence and national security. Reserved matters in schedule 3 will initially remain the responsibility of the UK Government, but can be devolved in future by Order in Council if the Assembly so wishes.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My right hon. Friend has come to the question of reserved powers. Could any of the Bill's provisions affect the right of this House to impose the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 on Northern Ireland, to ask questions about abortion in Northern Ireland or to debate abortion in relation to Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: The question of abortion will be a reserved power and therefore remains part of provisions with which the House will continue to deal. We are considering talking to groups about the issue, about which many in the House feel strongly. As my hon. Friend knows, no party in Northern Ireland would support the 1967 Act. At this time of transition, however, there may be a case for clarifying inconsistencies in the legal and medical positions. Due to the universal view that the Act should not apply in Northern Ireland, with which I disagree, we would need careful consultation with the parties.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: As I understand it, the legislation does not apply or belong to Northern

Ireland; it is not on the Northern Ireland statute book. As such powers will partly be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, they will become the responsibility of Northern Ireland. It would be very wrong if, in the transfer of powers, anyone in this House removed the right of Northern Ireland people to make their own decision on the matter.

Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my hon. Friend says. From my preparation for the debate, I understand that the power is potentially a reserved one, even though—he is absolutely right—the 1967 Act does not apply. Given that it is a reserved power, the House will still have an opportunity to debate the matter. I was making clear the position of political parties in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was under the impression that the matter would be transferred; it comes under the powers to be transferred to Northern Ireland Departments. Is the right hon. Lady saying that there will be exceptions to the transfer of powers that were transferred under previous legislation to a previous assembly? Is she saying that the House will retain this once transferred power?

Marjorie Mowlam: I see many hon. Members nodding. Normally, the subject would be considered a health issue. From my preparation, I understand that the matter concerns a right; it is a reserved matter. I shall correct myself later if I am wrong and the power is to be transferred. A note from my experts says that the matter is reserved because it is part of criminal law and therefore must remain reserved. I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) nodding; I was correct, thank goodness.
Other reserved matters include those concerning criminal justice, policing and prisons. The outcome of the two reviews into policing and criminal justice will obviously be an important part of any future transfer of reserved powers. Everything else is a transferred matter. That means that the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Department will be transferred to the new Northern Ireland Ministers.
Clause 4(5) defines "cross-community support" as it is defined in the agreement. Where key interests of either community are at stake, a requirement for cross-community support ensures that the Assembly will operate by partnership between the two main parts of the community.
Part II provides for the Assembly to make laws for Northern Ireland. Clause 6 borrows from the Scotland Bill, placing limits on the Assembly's legislative competence. The courts—ultimately the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—are to rule on whether the Assembly has stepped outside its legislative competence.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many of us have received a letter from Joan Smyth, the chair and chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, in which she claims
The proposal for the statutory obligations does not meet the commitments made in Paragraph 3 of the Agreement


and that that will not lead to effective sexual equality. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her earlier offer to look sympathetically at amendments that seek to strengthen the Bill, and draw to her attention the EOC's claim.

Marjorie Mowlam: Schedules 8 and 9 refer specifically to the matter. I am well aware of the concern that the EOC has expressed about the Equality Commission. The EOC outlined two or three specific problems. I hope that, when we consider schedules 8 and 9, my hon. Friend will see that we have taken those problems into account. The EOC was concerned about the hierarchy of rights and that, of the seven or eight inequalities listed, gender, race and disability would be too far down the agenda. We have answered concerns about functions and finance in the schedules. We have said that the Equality Commission would be structured by the chief executives of the four existing relevant commissions and by four representatives from the fields of inequality, sexual orientation, age and dependency. As I said, we are very flexible on amendments. We are listening to what people are saying and I believe that the specific criticism in the letter is addressed in the schedules.
Part III provides for the new executive authorities in Northern Ireland to be drawn from the Assembly. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their election as First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate. It is expected that, in September, on the back of their proposals on the number and allocation of portfolios, the other Northern Ireland Ministers will be selected using the d'Hondt procedure that is set out in clause 15.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Clause 14 says that if either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister resigns or vacates office, the other office is also deemed void. I do not wish such a situation on anybody, but there must be provision for an interregnum in the case of a bereavement or a resignation outside the political arena. Hours can be critical in Northern Ireland. We must make provision for continuity of office.

Marjorie Mowlam: The Standing Orders being drawn up will address that. The Bill provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to work in unison when possible, because that is the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, but we do not expect them both to fall under a bus. We are well aware of how clause 14 could be interpreted, so we are considering that in the Standing Orders.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State used the phrase "in unison". Why do we need constant use of the word jointly in the Bill? Does that not tie issues too tightly? What would happen in Scotland if the Labour party and the Scottish National party were tied together and had to work jointly? It is a recipe for disaster.

Marjorie Mowlam: I use the word in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, which is for parties of both communities to work together by consent when possible. If there are inconsistencies with the Good Friday agreement, we shall look at them. The comparison with

Scotland does not hold completely, because there are differences in structures between Scottish devolution and what is being proposed for Northern Ireland. For example, there is to be a Cabinet Government in Scotland.
Clause 16 permits the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make up the Executive Committee for the Assembly. Before each Minister takes up office, he or she must take the pledge of office, which is reproduced in full in schedule 5 and in the agreement. It includes a
commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
a pledge
to discharge in good faith all the duties of office
and an undertaking
to support, and act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly".
Clause 22 provides for each Northern Ireland Minister to be advised and assisted by a Committee of the Assembly, as the agreement says. It is fundamental to the Belfast agreement that the opportunities for a new future rest on people using only non-violent and democratic means to achieve their political objectives.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State made a passing reference at the start of her speech to the murder yesterday, in tragic circumstances, of Mr. Andrew Kearney. She may also be aware of the IRA beating of Mr. Vincent McKenna on the Ormeau road, who identified three of his attackers as senior members of the IRA. She will be aware that the family of Mr. Andrew Kearney have said that they believe that the IRA murdered him. In view of that evidence of breaches of the IRA ceasefire, is the Secretary of State convinced that the provisions of the Bill are adequate to ensure that organisations with political representatives in the Assembly can be held to account for their on-going violence on the streets and that such people can and will be excluded from holding ministerial office?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am convinced that the Bill is adequate. The Assembly will make the final decision. The hon. Gentleman refers to evidence in relation to the appalling murder of Mr. Kearney. I have yet to see evidence. As I have made clear on many occasions, when we get evidence, we shall make a judgment, as is our duty, and make recommendations to the Assembly on the basis of that.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that she still believes that provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked?

Marjorie Mowlam: Every time I have been asked that, I have said that I believe that to be the case. I shall make a judgment in the round based on the four factors that the Prime Minister outlined: a commitment to non-violence; the use of peaceful means only; no use of proxy groups; and no use of violent methods of any kind. I shall make a recommendation to the Assembly on that basis. The decision to act will rest with the Assembly.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall have to stop soon, otherwise no one else will get a chance to speak.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Unless the whole gamut of a detailed


court procedure is followed, it seems probable that all the Secretary of State's assessments of evidence will be political decisions rather than decisions based on hard evidence. I note the speed with which the Government ascribe to the Orange Order, of which I am not a member, complicity in the murders in Ballymoney, but their reluctance to make similar condemnation of IRA murders.

Marjorie Mowlam: As I have said many times before, I shall look at the evidence and make a judgment, as the Good Friday agreement provides. I have never said that the Orangemen were to blame for the violence in Drumcree. I said in the House just a week ago that I was deeply concerned that they were being used by people who did not support the agreement, but who were intent on destroying it. The television pictures showed a line of Orangemen, behind whom were other people, among whom there was shooting and blast bombs. Those other people made a big difference to what was going on. I did not directly blame many of the Orangemen who, as I have said many times, were badly served by others who came out to support them.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: This must be the last time I give way.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's giving way, because I realise that she wants to move on. There has been an admission in The Irish Times by the Continuity Army Council that it was responsible for incendiary devices that destroyed a property in north Belfast, leaving 40 people unemployed. The Chief Constable's certificate has not been issued on the grounds that there is not enough evidence. What constitutes evidence, given that The Irish Times has the code word from the Continuity Army Council?

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall look at all the evidence that comes to me from security sources and the RUC. I shall make a judgment based on the four criteria. I cannot make a judgment based on reports in The Irish Times or any other newspaper. I shall deal with the facts because, as we all know, newspapers sometimes write a story that we do not think is a fair representation. I shall stick to the facts as they come to me.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry. I have been reasonable in giving way.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the use of the twin tactics of the ballot box and the Armalite is unacceptable. He said:
There can be no fudge between democracy and terror.
The agreement states that clearly. Paragraph 25 of strand 1 says:
An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, for failure to meet his or her responsibilities including, inter alia,

those set out in the Pledge of Office. Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office under these provisions.
Clause 23 gives effect to those arrangements.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: No, I want to make progress. I do apologise.
Decisions on exclusion from ministerial office lie with the Assembly. That is what the agreement says. Ministers are chosen to serve the Assembly. The agreement says that a Minister can be removed from office for any failure to meet his or her responsibilities, including failure to co-operate properly with the institutions being set up by the agreement.
Clause 23(6) allows me to inform the Assembly if I think it should consider whether an individual or party is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and so should be excluded. We will use the four Balmoral criteria to make the assessment—the criteria appear in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, which we debated in the House a couple of weeks ago.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that if the arrangements prove ineffective during the first six months of the life of the shadow Assembly or the full Assembly, we will support changes to make them more effective.
Part IV of the Bill is concerned with the elections and procedures of the Assembly.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall, but I must then give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). That will be the last time I give way.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), gave an undertaking to the Standing Committee on the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill that this Bill would deal with arrangements for filling casual vacancies for the Assembly. Some of us had tabled amendments to avert the need for by-elections. However, clause 27 of this Bill contains exactly the same procedure as was in the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill; the matter is left up in the air. It is not unreasonable to think that Ministers should have come here with specific proposals on filling casual vacancies. That has not been done.

Marjorie Mowlam: We have included in the Bill a number of amendments suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are considering others. I said that we would table other amendments later. I hope that my hon. Friend will have a little patience on that matter.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for eventually giving way to me. Can she show us where in the Bill it states that anybody can be excluded from taking up office because they have not given their


commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? The Bill shows how they can be removed from office. Can they be stopped from taking up office?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes. Clause 23 contains the exclusion from office provisions, which include a person who has not signed up to peaceful and democratic ways forward. If a person is part of the Assembly, he or she will be part of a party that has signed up to peaceful, non-violent ways forward. If he or she moves into office, but does not fulfil the pledge of office, he or she will—if the Assembly so chooses—be excluded. If that commitment is not given, they cannot take up office, as in clause 23(1).
Part IV is concerned with the elections and procedure of the Assembly. The Assembly is to have a four-year term, with the next election coming in May 2003.
Clause 34 provides for "petitions of concern", as in the agreement. If 30 Members of the Assembly request it, any vote in the Assembly can be required to have cross-community support, so either community can ensure that, in the future, its fundamental interests are protected. The key decisions of the Assembly will be taken on a partnership basis.
Part V makes financial provision. The intention is that the transferred matters in Northern Ireland should continue to be funded on the basis of the Barnett formula. Within that, in future, the Northern Ireland Administration will have the freedom to determine its own expenditure priorities.
Part VI provides further protection for human rights and equality of opportunity—again, reflecting the provisions in the agreement. The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be a more powerful and wide-ranging body than the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which it replaces. The new commission will be independent of government. It has a wide remit
to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness in Northern Ireland of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights".
The commission will automatically receive every Bill introduced into the Assembly, so that it can, if it wishes, scrutinise it for compatibility with human rights. The commission will provide advice both to me and to Ministers in the Assembly, both at our request and at its own initiative. In particular, one of its first tasks will be to look at the scope for defining rights over and above those in the European convention on human rights to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Such rights could constitute a future Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Under clause 56, the commission has the power to assist individuals in proceedings in the courts where issues of human rights arise.
Clause 59 establishes the Equality Commission. On 10 July, I announced the outcome of the Government's consultation on the proposals. Following that consultation, we have—as I stated earlier—sought to protect the importance of gender, race and disability within a single commission.
Clause 61 places a statutory duty on the public sector to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in all areas of its operations.
Clause 65 provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make preparations for the establishment of the civic forum. Those will then need to be approved by the Assembly.
Finally, clauses 66 and 67 deal with the roles of Northern Ireland Ministers at meetings of the various bodies under strands 2 and 3 of the Belfast agreement. That wider framework of relationships is fundamental to the success of the Assembly and of the agreement as a whole. All are mutually interdependent. None can successfully function without the others.
Clause 68 reflects paragraph 9 of strand 2 of the agreement. By 31 October, the shadow north-south ministerial council is to agree six areas where future north-south co-operation will take place through agreed implementation bodies on a cross-border or all-Ireland basis. Once agreed, I can confer powers and functions on such bodies under clause 68. That will enable me to meet the commitment in paragraph 10 of strand 2 to make the necessary preparations to ensure that these bodies function at the time of the transfer of powers.
The Bill makes a further important step in implementing the Belfast agreement. Since the agreement was reached on Good Friday, it has been endorsed by a referendum on 22 May; elections were held on 25 June for the Assembly; the Assembly had its first meeting on 1 July and elected the First Minister and Deputy First Minister; the Policing Commission has begun its work; the review of criminal justice is under way; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill is under consideration in Parliament; and decommissioning schemes have been introduced.
The Bill paves the way for the transfer of powers to locally elected politicians from early next year. It is essential that all aspects of the agreement move forward together in parallel and that all parties honour the commitments they have made. Unless they do that, the agreement will not work.
On 10 April, thanks to the courage and determination of the Northern Ireland talks parties, the people of Northern Ireland began an historic journey towards a new future. The Bill is another crucial milestone along the way. It is Parliament's opportunity to show solidarity and support for the people of Northern Ireland and to take forward their democratic wish.
As such, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: First, I thank the Secretary of State for allowing us to see an early draft of the Bill and allowing us to comment on it—an opportunity which, I gather, was given to every party in the House. Secondly, I thank her and her parliamentary colleagues for allowing the House to table amendments to the Bill at an earlier stage than would usually be the case. That will give the House a greater opportunity to consider amendments carefully before the Committee stage, which starts on Wednesday. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the main provisions of the Bill—a Bill which, I believe, is warmly welcomed throughout Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
On behalf of the Opposition, I offer sincere congratulations to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their election as First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate in the Assembly. They both played a crucial role in negotiating the Belfast agreement. Both showed steely determination to make progress when it might have been an easier and safer


option to take refuge in some of the slogans and entrenched positions of the past. The relationship between them will, in many respects, be the axis that binds together the Executive, and with it many of the hopes and aspirations for the future.
No one underestimates the difficulties and challenges that lie ahead, not least the formation of a Northern Ireland Executive. I believe, however, that we can all take encouragement from the statesmanlike way in which the First Minister and his deputy have worked together to defuse the situation at Drumcree in recent days, and to ensure that it has not escalated out of control. That augurs well for the future. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing the two of them well in the trying times ahead.
The Bill gives legislative effect to those parts of the Belfast agreement that establish the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. It is worth pausing for a moment to consider that, ever since the demise of Stormont in 1972 and the power-sharing Executive in 1974, it has been the objective of all Governments to end direct rule and to re-establish devolved institutions of government on a basis that can command widespread support throughout the community. To say that it has proved extremely difficult to achieve is something of an understatement.
Following one of the golden rules of politics, legislation that was originally intended to be temporary—the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—has assumed an air of permanence. Every year since 1974, successive Secretaries of State have come to the House to renew the Act, and to express the hope that it will be the last time that they must do so.
High-profile initiatives have come and gone—the constitutional convention in 1975, the Atkins round table talks in 1980 and Lord Prior's "rolling devolution" assembly from 1982 to 1986. Finally, the painstaking efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), continued by Lord Mayhew, paved the way for the successes that have so far been achieved and the Bill that we are discussing today.
However, we should not underestimate the achievements of direct rule. It is, as I know the Secretary of State will acknowledge, a fair, efficient and effective method of government. Under successive Secretaries of State, progress has been made on several fronts. However, few people have ever regarded it as anything but second best as a form of government: however wisely the current Secretary of State and her predecessors have administered the Province, direct rule has suffered from a number of crucial defects.
Under direct rule, the Secretary of State and her colleagues administer the six separate Northern Ireland Departments. Legislation on "transferred" matters is often made by Order in Council rather than by Bill; I believe that the previous Government made some progress in that area. No Minister who has served in the Northern Ireland Office since 1972 has ever sat for a Northern Ireland constituency. The Secretary of State and her colleagues exercise a range of powers which, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would be exercised at local level. That has created in Northern Ireland a democratic

deficit, in which Northern Ireland's elected representatives have been unable to decide the priorities for Northern Ireland and to be answerable to the electorate there.
That, in turn, has fostered in Northern Ireland an engrained culture of political opposition. Despite the establishment of a Select Committee of the House—I pay tribute to the work that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done—that cannot be a substitute for the proper scrutiny of legislation that will be provided by the Assembly; nor can the work of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
The biggest challenges that lie ahead—I say this constructively—will be for Northern Ireland's politicians to break free from the culture of opposition and to be responsible for shaping policies on such matters as health, education, industrial development and, of course, the environment.
The Bill will finally bring to an end the anomaly of direct rule. That will be good for the administration of Northern Ireland, for the political life of Northern Ireland and for democracy. The Assembly will also serve a wider political purpose. It will bring politicians from the two traditions together, uniting—we hope—to work for the good of Northern Ireland and its people. Nothing will better demonstrate the determination of Ulster's political representatives to make a reality of the new beginning than the relationship that the Belfast agreement represents.
Let us be clear in our minds that the new Assembly is not a return to the Stormont period. It is not a return to the era of political institutions being operated by, and having the allegiance of, only one section of the community; and it is not an instrument for the dominance of one community over another. One of the great virtues of the Assembly—and a source of real hope—is that, unlike its predecessors, it should be able to command the allegiance and support of all the major traditions in Northern Ireland—Unionists, nationalists and those who do not wish to be classified by such labels.
The Assembly will give to those parties that have clearly and unequivocally renounced violence—and by their words and deeds proved that to be the case—the share in the government and administration of the Province that their political mandate warrants. There will be important safeguards for the passage of legislation; minimum thresholds of support by the Unionist and nationalist blocs will be required. The Bill also contains significant protection for minorities and human rights. All that should be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland.
However, the Assembly will work firmly—and I believe securely—within the United Kingdom. It is not an Assembly which undermines the Union.
The retention of the office of Secretary of State is especially important, providing a vital link between Northern Ireland and Westminster, and exercising significant powers in relation to the Assembly and control over excepted matters. We are also adamant that the House should continue to take a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. We should not repeat the mistakes of the Stormont period, when the House effectively turned its back on Stormont and the Province. There must be in Northern Ireland, as much as in Scotland and Wales, the strongest possible relationship between Westminster and the devolved institutions.
Northern Ireland will continue to be represented in this Parliament. Clause 5(6) of the Bill—reflecting paragraph 34 of the agreement—makes it clear that the establishment of the Assembly
does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland.
The Bill repeals the Government of Ireland Act 1920. We have no problem with that. Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom is guaranteed by the Act of Union of 1800, which is unaffected by anything in the agreement or in the Bill. It is now more firmly established than ever before that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people who live there.
For the first time since the tripartite agreement signed by Baldwin, Craig and Cosgrave in 1925, the Irish Government will recognise Northern Ireland as a legitimate political entity and a legitimate part of the United Kingdom. In recognition of that unassailable fact, the Irish territorial claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland has been amended.
Against that background, we can be comfortable with the arrangements for the north-south ministerial council, service on which will be a statutory requirement for any Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. The agreement identifies a number of sensible areas of competence for the north-south body where co-operation could bring benefits to both parts of the island.
None of that undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or implies some kind of slippery slope towards a united Ireland. There are clear lines of accountability back to the Assembly. On this subject, I can do no better than to quote the words of the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—a figure revered to this day by many Unionists—James Craig, when he said:
the North and South have got to live together as neighbours and the prosperity of Northern Ireland does undoubtedly affect the prosperity of the South of Ireland.
So it is for the Government of the South and the Government of the North, to turn their hands rather from the matters which may have divided them in the past, to concentrate on the matters which really affect the welfare of the people in their own area with a view that the whole of Ireland, and not one part of it, may be prosperous.
Those words were spoken in 1926—significantly, just after the tripartite agreement had recognised the border between north and south. Later events, as we know, ensured that the co-operation envisaged by Craig sadly did not occur. However, I believe that the new political dispensation, the Belfast agreement and the changes that have been made in the Republic, allow us to fulfil Craig's vision and to embark on a new period of constructive co-operation between north and south.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the tripartite agreement of 1925 was effectively rejected by the 1937 constitution of the Republic of Ireland, and all the wise things that Craigavon said were abandoned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he said was inaccurate?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening to what I said.

Mr. McCartney: I was—very carefully.

Mr. MacKay: I said clearly that, regrettably, events led to that not happening. I also said clearly that the

constitution of the Republic of Ireland has been changed to take into account the fact that the Republic no longer has a constitutional claim on the north. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) cannot ignore that, much as he may wish to do so, politically.
I shall return to my speech, as I know that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We welcome the establishment of the British-Irish council, an idea that owes its origins in no small part to the work of my late colleague, Sir John Biggs-Davison.
For all those reasons, the Opposition support the Bill, and if necessary will support it in the Division Lobby this evening. We do not believe, however, that it is perfect in every respect. There are genuine concerns on two particular issues—the release of prisoners, and the entry into the government of Northern Ireland of the political representatives of those organisations that have yet to establish a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful methods.
We agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that there can be no compromise between democracy and terrorism. Furthermore, there can be no question of any organisation wielding—if I may paraphrase Danny Morrison's famous remark—Executive power in one hand and an Armalite in the other. In that context, we strongly support the fact that all Ministers will have to make a pledge of office setting out their opposition to violence, and to comply with the ministerial code of conduct.
We also support the provisions of the legislation that require Members of the Assembly serving as shadow Ministers during the transitional period to affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and their opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose. We trust that any party breaching those requirements during the transitional period will not serve in the Executive once powers have been devolved to it. However, we continue to find it disturbing that there is no guarantee that Assembly Members will be barred from office unless the organisations with which they are associated are co-operating fully with the decommissioning commission.
The Opposition are not seeking to rewrite the agreement. It was the Prime Minister who saw fit to clarify the Belfast agreement and in so doing to offer a particular interpretation of it, and it was on his interpretation that many of the people of Northern Ireland voted yes in the referendum in May. We ask the Government to make it clear in the legislation that full-co-operation with the decommissioning commission will be a condition of entry into any ministerial position in the Assembly. That is what the people believed was the Government's position at the time of the referendum. They should have the reassurance that it remains the Government's position today.
I conclude by speaking as a Unionist to fellow Unionists in Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement has been described in some circles as "Sunningdale for slow learners." I do not necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it serves to remind us of the high hopes that many people entertained in 1974. What was then described as a new beginning was brought crashing down in only five months. There are some Unionists today who want to wreck the agreement. In my view, few acts would


do more to weaken the Unionist case and undermine the achievements of recent years, especially the almost universal acceptance now of the principle of consent. Few acts would more readily play into the hands of the Unionists' enemies.
To the nationalists I say this: do not reinforce the suspicions of those who would portray the agreement as a Trojan horse to Irish unity by setting impossible demands and setting ambitions for the north-south ministerial council too high.
Finally, on a cautionary note and wishing the Assembly well, let us for once in Northern Ireland learn some of the lessons of history, in order that we are not condemned to repeat its mistakes.

Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the Bill, primarily because it provides for the transfer of power to the New Northern Ireland Assembly and ends 26 years of direct rule—26 wasted years, 26 years of bad government and a constant rundown in the quality of the Northern Ireland civil service. It gives to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to turn that back and to put in place better government—government closer to the people and more responsive to their needs. Naturally, we hope that it will succeed.
We hope that the provisions of the Bill will be accompanied by an end to violence, but the present situation gives much cause for concern. We see the attempts at continued violence, mainly from dissident republicans. That is shown in the attempted wave of bombing in London, which was intercepted by the police only a few days ago, for which we are thankful, and shown also in the attempted bombing in Northern Ireland.
A little-remarked feature of the past couple of weeks has been the interception by the police of a 1,400 lb car bomb in Armagh and the defusing of a 500 lb car bomb in Newry. We congratulate the security forces in Northern Ireland and in London and hope that they will continue to succeed, but the frequency with which bombs are coming in from real IRA, continuity IRA, dissident IRA—it does not matter which—is a matter for concern. More effective action is needed on that front.
There is also concern about the actions of some loyalist rejectionists. I shall make a few observations with regard to recent events in Northern Ireland, especially those at Drumcree. If the Garvaghy road residents really supported the agreement with its emphasis on the rights of people to celebrate their identity, they would have withdrawn their objections to Orangemen walking home from church along that road.
If the Parades Commission really supported the new beginning offered by the agreement, it would not have interfered with the right of assembly or freedom of movement. Most Portadown Orangemen were peacefully protesting within the law against what they saw as an injustice, and they have my sympathy, but too many people were exploiting that protest in the attempt to destroy the hopes contained in the agreement and to see violence resumed. They were wrong and they have failed. It is clear that by far the greater number of people in Northern Ireland reject their methods and their objectives. We must recognise that a legitimate sense of grievance remains and must be addressed.
The Assembly is based on the principle of proportionality carried into effect by the d'Hondt formula. While the d'Hondt formula is automatic, there is a condition on its application that is contained in paragraph 25 of the strand 1 section of the agreement and is carried into effect in the Bill by clause 23, which has been referred to already in the debate. That condition involves the commitment to peaceful means and the democratic process. I refer particularly to clause 23(2), which states:
If the Assembly resolves that a political party does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly…because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means…members of that party shall be excluded".
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that the clause contains the phrase "does not enjoy", so the provision can be exercised ab initio to exclude people from office and not merely remove them once they have entered office.
As things stand, I have no confidence in Sinn Fein's commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means. Consequently, I would have to act in accordance with clause 23(2) if such a situation were to arise today. Will things change in the future? Essentially, that is in the hands of Sinn Fein. It knows what it must do in order for things to change—we spelled that out in detail in our manifesto for the Assembly elections. It is up to Sinn Fein. So far, it has done nothing positive: it has not even fulfilled the expectations that it created in the media a few weeks ago regarding the disappeared. On the other hand, we have Sinn Fein's negative acts, evidenced by its attempts to exploit tensions over the marches and by beatings. The McKenna attack and the Kearney killing have been mentioned. I believe that the evidence of Mr. McKenna that he recognised and identified some of his assailants is evidence on which the Secretary of State can rely.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's giving way on that point. As the representative of that constituency, I must put on record the fact that Vincent McKenna is an honourable man with republican views. He began to be disgusted by what was occurring in the community and discovered that the bulk of the community would be happy with an Orange procession along the Ormeau road. He was immediately threatened by the IRA, which has now acted.

Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend makes his point very effectively.
If the Assembly is to work, it must be based on an effective coalition between us and the SDLP. I have no problem with that concept—indeed, I supported it in the constitutional convention of 1975. At that time, the coalition was to be entered into freely; this time, the coalition is formalised in the agreement and in legislation—particularly with regard to the special voting procedures contained therein.
In principle, those procedures—weighted majorities and special votes with some people identified as nationalist and others as Unionist—are uncomfortable, some would say objectionable, because they enshrine sectarianism in the operations of the Assembly. I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, sufficient confidence will be generated in the Assembly to enable us to move away from those procedures. In any event, there may be a growth in parties that decline to be classified as either nationalist or Unionist. For those reasons, it would have


been better if those procedures had been presented in a form that could be amended easily rather than being set in stone. We are uncomfortable with their being set in stone indefinitely.
I shall touch briefly on some important matters in the Bill. The question of the devolution of Executive functions is not handled properly in this draft. In the talks, we proposed a committee system similar to that originally envisaged for Wales. In order to reach agreement with the SDLP, we moved towards a form of Executive. However, that cannot be a Cabinet, because of the absence of collective responsibility, which is a consequence of the d'Hondt formula. Committees have not disappeared; nor have they become merely consultative. The agreement is clear: in addition to a consultative and scrutiny function, the committees will have a role in policy, departmental budgets, the initiation and consideration of primary legislation and the approval of secondary legislation.
Ministers have responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of administration within their areas of responsibility as defined by the Bill and the programme approved by the Assembly as a whole. However, they are clearly not Ministers in the sense understood in this place and in Whitehall. An earlier draft of the Bill about which we were consulted—I appreciate that fact—made the mistake of assuming that Assembly Ministers would be similar to Ministers in Westminster. It vested Executive functions directly in Ministers, as if the delicate balance in the agreement did not exist. That was clearly wrong, and we expressed that view a week ago on 10 July during consultation with the Northern Ireland Office and the SDLP. It was agreed that the draft should be changed.
The current draft in clause 18(3) vests all Executive powers in the First and Deputy First Ministers as if it were a joint presidency. It gives powers to departments and Ministers only to the extent that they approve. That overturns completely the concept of proportionality under d'Hondt, and it seems to run counter to the scheme in the agreement. Looking at the notes on clauses, I was amused to see the claim that the Government were relying on an equivalent clause in the Scotland Bill. That was true of the draft that we considered on 10 July, but it is not true of this clause, which is different.
The solution is simple and can be identified by examining the clauses in the Government of Wales Bill. I suggest that Executive power should be vested in the Assembly as a whole to be devolved by it in accordance with its Standing Orders. That avoids the draftsmen's obvious difficulty and gives flexibility to the Assembly. The scheme envisaged in the agreement may be difficult to work and we will not want to return to this place in order to make minor adjustments. This solution maintains the safeguard for all parties because the approval of Standing Orders is a key decision requiring cross-community agreement.
Clause 18(3) also runs somewhat counter to the agreement in giving power to the First and Deputy First Ministers to determine how functions will be exercised by Departments. That is contrary to the agreement. Incidentally, my role and that of my deputy, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), has been inflated greatly in the drafting of the Bill. The agreement gives comparatively limited functions to the First and Deputy First Ministers and I think that, when faced with difficulties, the draftsmen decided to dump them on us. I am not sure that I appreciate that.
The provisions regarding the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council also appear to be inadequate. The detailed safeguards in the agreement have been omitted entirely. The rather bland references to agreements in clause 66 fail to take into account the fact that those agreements will be treaties in some cases, and the power to make treaties is an accepted matter. Clause 68 is particularly bizarre. It refers to bodies being established and the Secretary of State's opinion with regard to them. Reference is made to paragraph 9(ii) of the multi-party agreement, which points to what happens during the shadow period when, by definition, the Assembly is incapable of establishing any body.
We must redraft those clauses and remember that, anything that the north-south ministerial council can do, the British-Irish Council can do as well. There may be agreements between Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh of which Dublin can also be a part. There is no provision for that in the Bill; nor is there any appropriate provision in the Scottish and Welsh legislation. I hope that the Government will comment on that.
I said at the outset that the Bill provided an end to direct rule. That is what it should do, but clause 72 tries to preserve one of the most offensive aspects of direct rule: the power to enact primary legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. Clearly, that practice should end.
I should also like the Government to reconsider including the Equality Commission in the Bill. That arises not from the agreement—which makes only passing reference to it—but from the quite independent review of fair employment legislation. There was some public consultation on the matter, but it was truncated arbitrarily to enable the Administration to grab what undoubtedly appears to be a convenient legislative vehicle into which the provisions may be stuffed.
I notice that the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and other equivalent bodies are uncomfortable with this. Their opposition may reflect a desire to maintain their own particular empires. We support in principle the concept of a one-stop shop, but we think that we do not have an appropriate legislative vehicle before us. Moreover, the Bill's provisions are drafted as if the Assembly did not exist. Provisions refer in large part to transferred matters. These need to be rethought. The sensible approach is to consider these matters again. The failure to recognise the incipient arrival of the Assembly seems to me, if I may say so, to be the last kick of the ancien regime. I hope that the Bourbons of the Northern Ireland Office are now prepared to learn.
I have to criticise the financial provisions in the Bill. It seems absurd that clause 45 was put into it. The clause tries to preserve the financial scheme of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and does so in circumstances that are wholly inappropriate. The financial scheme of the 1920 Act was a failure within years of that measure's enactment and it was never applied in practice. Why has the clause been inserted in the Bill?
I appreciate the Government's desire to preserve the substance of the provisions of the 1920 Act while repealing the Act, but in this instance that approach is misconceived. We should have provisions for financial matters that are similar to those for Scotland and Wales. Introducing different financial provisions for Northern Ireland might lead some people to conclude that financial


arrangements for Northern Ireland should be different from those for Scotland and Wales. We would be strongly opposed to that. We want the Barnett formula to continue.
Modifying somewhat the terms that I used in the final session of the multi-party talks, we see the agreement as addressing the wounds that have damaged our society, ensuring that our diverse traditions attract respect and, above all, laying the foundations for a healthy, vibrant democracy to replace the stagnation, frustration and powerlessness of the past three years. Of course, we welcome it.

Mr. David Winnick: I very much welcome the Bill and the Belfast agreement. I am pleased that, before we break for the summer recess, this necessary legislation will be passed. I am sure that I was not alone in having doubts about whether the talks would succeed. Inevitably with Northern Ireland, there is always some pessimism, which I am sad to say is sometimes well justified. However, I am pleased, as I am sure is the large majority in the House, that agreement was finally reached.
I pay tribute to all those involved—including, of course, the two main parties in Northern Ireland, one representing the main stream of Unionism and the other Irish nationalism. I pay tribute as well to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team of Ministers.
There was, of course, also the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there had to be a successful outcome, and by a certain date. As someone who is not always uncritical of the Government, when I praise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his efforts and determination, that should not be seen as a sort of ritual slap on the back from a Labour Back Bencher. I cannot imagine that there are many people who are in favour of the agreement who would not equally pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend undertook.
As for the previous Government, I believe that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) tried his very best to reach agreement. I also believe that he was well motivated. He had the full support of the Labour party over Northern Ireland when it was in opposition.
I understand all the reasons why, it was not possible at the time to arrive at the successful outcome on decommissioning, that the right hon. Gentleman wanted. That was unfortunate. However, I am sure, although the right hon. Gentleman is not present in the Chamber today—there is no reason why he should be—the previous Prime Minister fully supports everything said by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Whatever may happen with subsequent amendments, there was little, if anything, in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I could disagree. I hope that such unanimity over the Good Friday agreement will continue.
Sometimes, rather like the pessimism that I had over whether there would be an agreement, I am pessimistic about whether Conservative Back Benchers may force the right hon. Member for Bracknell to a different position. I hope not. As I have said, I hope that the unanimity which we have heard today from the two Front Benches will continue. I do not work on the basis that, when they both agree, that necessarily proves that we are embarking

on the wrong course. That is a cynical view. The two Front Benches agreed on the Falklands and Iraq, and few have has suggested that on either issue the large majority in this place was wrong. I certainly do not believe that the Front Benches are wrong in supporting the agreement.
The important issue of decommissioning is, of course, part of the agreement, and it is in the Bill. It will feature in the work of the independent commission. I want decommissioning to take place. There is a responsibility on all paramilitary organisations that support the agreement to undertake the necessary decommissioning. Decommissioning is certainly important, but I have always taken the view that paramilitary organisations that support the agreement should not use arms. I have always seen that as the more important point arising from the political situation.
From the first, I was strenuously opposed to the IRA campaign. Like my Labour colleagues, I condemned on every occasion the crimes and atrocities of the IRA, as well as those of the loyalist gangs on the other side, whatever names they happened to take at any given time.
My constituency is very near Birmingham. We have not forgotten—we are not likely to forget—the terrible crime committed in November 1974, when so many people, half of them under the age of 25, were put to death. As we do not forget what happened in Birmingham and other places on the mainland, such as Warrington, nor can we forget—we have no reason to do so—the crimes committed in Northern Ireland itself, including Enniskillen and other places. Those were crimes against humanity, and they were to be condemned. I am pleased, like my colleagues, that at every opportunity I made my views perfectly clear, in the House and outside.
Even if we leave aside the crimes and atrocities that were committed—I never took the view that they should be—I never accepted politically that it was possible to bring about a united Ireland through terror. It seemed to me from the beginning that the very idea that it was possible to force through by terror tactics a united Ireland against the clear wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland was not on.
In September 1983, 15 years ago, when I was a member of a parliamentary Labour party delegation of the Northern Ireland group, I and other members went to Northern Ireland. We saw whichever political party was willing to see us. When I met the Sinn Fein leadership, like my colleagues, I said that terrorism would not succeed. I said that no British Government would agree to giving in to terror, and that no British Government, in any circumstances, would say, "Regardless of the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland, we are going to abdicate our responsibility."

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as a result of the Bill, the political representatives who are inextricably linked with the terrorist groups that committed those crimes will be rewarded with places in government under an arrangement which they consider to be transitional on the way to their ultimate objective of a united Ireland?

Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman, deliberately or otherwise, allows himself to be swayed by IRA propaganda. For a quarter of a century and more,


the Provisional IRA and, linked to it, Sinn Fein, argued that such terror would achieve a unitary state in Ireland. That has not happened; indeed, groups have broken away from the IRA—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to them—because they believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein have betrayed the cause, as they would put it. It would be advisable not to accept the propaganda of the IRA or Sinn Fein, which would have us believe that they have achieved a great victory. That is not the case, and the hon. and learned Member knows it.
The Irish Republic's attitude was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bracknell when he spoke about the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. I welcome those changes, which arise from the Belfast agreement. The Irish Republic, as he will agree, has always been opposed to the IRA campaign of terror and violence, has never questioned in practice the constitutional links between Northern Ireland and this country, and has recognised that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
The constitution of the Irish Republic has been so changed, and rightly so, and that has been approved in a referendum, as it had to be. That has clearly set out the fact that there can be no change in Northern Ireland's status without the consent of the majority of the people, expressed in the usual constitutional and democratic way. To some extent, that answers the hon. and learned Member for North Down.
Good working relationships between Britain and Ireland are absolutely essential. Time and again, difficulties between the two countries have meant difficulties in Northern Ireland. As the agreement shows in respect of strands 1 and 2, good working relationships are absolutely necessary. To put it mildly, there have been centuries of disquiet and difficulties between Ireland and Britain, but, to a large extent, good working relationships have been established over the past 10 or 15 years. That is highly desirable, and certainly in the interests of Northern Ireland.
I have been involved from the Back Benches in the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body, which was set up eight years ago. It brought together parliamentarians from both countries, and we have established good working relationships. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), my predecessor as chair, who was one of the pioneers in setting up the group. He deserves great praise, and I was pleased to work with him as vice-chair over a number of years.

Mr. Mackinlay: Where are the members of the body?

Mr. McNamara: There are seven present, and four substitutes.

Mr. Winnick: I do not intend to find out how many members of the body are present. I know that members of it, if my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is listening, are active in Committee meetings, and do a very useful job.
I want to issue a warning. It was inevitable that elements on the republican side who are opposed to the agreement would be determined to continue to wage a campaign of terror. What the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said about those groups did not surprise me in the least. Those small republican elements are not

concerned about democratic elections and could not care less about the referendum result in Northern Ireland or in the Republic.
Such groups believe that they have a dedicated mission to achieve a united Ireland regardless of any mandate from the electorate and they will continue to do what they can to inflict terror—I include the mainland in that—to achieve maximum publicity. The main thing is to ensure that these small republican groups that have broken away from the IRA are as isolated as possible. We should praise the work of the British and Irish security authorities, which made sure that what was likely to have been a devastating attack in London last week did not take place.
Opposition Members who oppose the agreement will, I am sure, accept the will and authority of Parliament, however great their opposition, but there are nevertheless elements on the Unionist side who believe that they can destroy the Belfast agreement by violence of one kind or another. Although I do not blame the Orange Order as such for what happened at Drumcree over the burning to death of three young children—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about that—it must take some responsibility for what occurred.
The Orange Order knew that the Parades Commission had been set up by Parliament, but totally ignored its recommendation and took no notice of the Chief Constable. Unlike the republican extremists, members of the Orange Order always say that they accept the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, but when an issue goes against them, as at Drumcree, they are not willing to accept the rule of law. What happened there showed that thugs who have no concern for human life were willing to use the protest to take the lives of three innocent children who would not have known the distinction between the Orange Order and the red order.
The protest at Drumcree has come to little; I am pleased about that, but how unfortunate it is that it took the loss of the lives of three young children to bring that about. Surely the lesson for the Orange Order—as for all organisations in Northern Ireland, whether on the Unionist or the nationalist side—is to accept the rule of law and to accept that recommendations should be accepted. I much welcome the agreement and believe that it is a significant way forward for Northern Ireland. I wish it the very best.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: This is a magnificent day for Northern Irish affairs in this Parliament, not only because it marks my formal return to the Floor of the House of Commons following my serious accident about 12 weeks ago, but because it is an opportunity to bring together everything that many of us have strived to achieve. I pay tribute to those who have been Members of Parliament for much longer than I who have worked through the dark times, as well as through these more positive times, to try to achieve a renaissance in Northern Irish politics, which I did not expect this side of the millennium.
This is also an opportunity for us to note that we have too often discussed Northern Ireland in the context of the previous atrocity or outrage or the latest appalling act. Today, we have begun to consider a practical way to end all that, and move Northern Ireland into a fresh century. Of course the deaths of Mark, Richard and Jason were a


step back; they showed that many people in Northern Ireland are still confused by the way forward, and that a few people are still willing to resort to violence.
Andrew Kearney's death is further evidence that we still have a long way to go. In some ways, however, the outcome of Drumcree showed that those tensions can be worked through. Despite the difficulties that we witnessed on television and in the fraught efforts of those who sought to achieve a reconciliation in Drumcree, we have moved to the next step in the tortuous and slow process towards a lasting peace.
I pay tribute to the work done by the Secretary of State and her team of Ministers. Watching events from my hospital bed, I was inclined to believe that, given the opportunity of trading places with them, I would choose the continuing hospitality of the national health service.
I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who have been elected to important positions. They have the opportunity—or perhaps the burden—to carry forward some of the most controversial aspects of the important precedent that will mark the effectiveness, or perhaps the ineffectiveness, of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Had I had the opportunity, I would have voted for their election myself.
As this is the Bill's Third Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second Reading."] I stand corrected. I landed on my head in the course of my accident, so I hope that hon. Members will be patient if I make the occasional small error. As this is the Bill's Second Reading, I shall not go into great detail about the amendments that the Liberal Democrats propose, but I am greatly heartened that Ministers intend to listen seriously to any proposals that would enhance the Bill.
We all know why direct rule has been necessary, but we should not let that blinker us to the idiocies to which that has sometime led. I have never pinpointed a farmyard track in the Falkland islands and suggested how it could be re-routed; perhaps the penguins would have a better idea than I in that area. In the same context, I do not see why I should be entitled to legislate or participate in debates in this Chamber on farmyard tracks in a part of Northern Ireland with which I am not familiar, yet that has been the case over the past two decades.
The Bill represents a golden opportunity to end that, by establishing an Assembly to make those decisions in the name of Northern Ireland, not on our behalf but on behalf of local people. The Assembly will work democratically and from an informed standpoint. After all, local people have to live with those decisions, and they are best able to judge whether the decisions have been a success. It has already been said that the Bill contains various insurance policies. Perhaps we should be a little bolder and more willing to delegate responsibilities to an Assembly that ultimately we must trust to carry devolution forward.
Still, it can also be said that the devolution opportunity within the Bill is flexible. The reserved powers provide the House with the chance to delegate more responsibilities to the Assembly as time goes on. I would expect us to default to the assumption that we will hand over more responsibilities as quickly as we can. Incumbent on an Assembly receiving those extra responsibilities is the duty to handle them sensibly.
Although the Bill deals predominantly with strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement, we should not neglect the other parts of the agreement or the process that led us to where we are today. I was glad to hear the positive tones of the Secretary of State's response to a question about strand 2 put by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) last week at Northern Ireland Questions. Incidentally, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's work when he stood in for me during my convalescence. Strand 2 is proceeding apace, and the north-south ministerial council will be in place by 31 October—an appropriate date because I always feared that the bogeyman of Halloween would get us if we did not achieve that deadline.
The British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body has been very effective. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on finally conceding his envy at not yet being on that body. I assure him that many of us will lobby hard to ensure that he joins us one day.

Mr. Mackinlay: I would turn up.

Mr. Öpik: It is encouraging that most members of the body have turned up. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked hard, and we look forward to the body being converted into a partner as matters progress.

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body will probably be laid to rest next year because of the strand 3 agreement, which creates a British-Irish Council made up of representatives of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, this Parliament and the Dail?

Mr. Öpik: It is interesting, albeit frightening as a Member, to think that such a successful body could be wound up, but the hon. Gentleman is right—it is a reasonable possibility. It would be a great loss if its work and the connections that it has built up over the years were to be lost. Perhaps it should be regarded as one of the bodies from which a future body could evolve.
Strand 3, which deals with intergovernmental matters, does not come within the ambit of the Bill. Despite the Bill's emphasis on strand 1, it is the "settlement" Bill that its name implies, because it encompasses all the major issues. The Bill can be dealt with in this House in relation to the Good Friday agreement.
The title "settlement" Bill is particularly appropriate, because we have often been close to a settlement in the past. Progress in Northern Ireland is not new; there was political progress in 1974, 1982 and 1991. The history of progress in Northern Ireland was gathering dust, because each time it was overcome by inertia or negated by regress. Progress in Northern Ireland is as common as Christmas, but settlements are as elusive as Santa Claus. Since my childhood, as I have watched politicians on television, I have been disappointed to see hope, promise and expectation dashed at the last moment. Now, on this occasion, we seem to have overcome many of the hurdles, and moved far further than ever before in my lifetime.
That is the challenge this time. We have had the talks about talks, the elections to talks, the talks themselves, the negotiations, the deal, and the agreement. We then


had the success story: the referendum followed by the elections. However, we have yet to settle the final Bill, which must turn the agreement into a settlement. If we do our job well over the next fortnight, the agreement could be transformed into a lasting triumph. If we do not, the good intentions behind the Good Friday agreement may remain just good intentions.
The Liberal Democrats' role during consideration of the Bill is to help to transform the agreement into a settlement, which means ensuring that the spirit and letter of the agreement are translated accurately into legislation. The Bill could be improved in a number of areas, and we shall table a few amendments so that it mirrors the agreement more effectively and clarifies some vagaries that could cause problems if they are not clearly defined now. Although we agree with the majority of the 82 clauses, we shall propose specific amendments in Committee—for example, to clauses 22, 38 and 66. Those amendments will strengthen the settlement, so that everything that has been achieved to date will not be brought down by uncertainty.
We hope that our consistent, constructive contribution will aid the spirit of co-operation that is so often seen in Parliament on Northern Ireland issues. Furthermore, we hope that the Government will accept our proposals in good faith. Our aim throughout will be to help convert the agreement into a rational and reasonable law. I hope that that approach will be taken by all hon. Members, regardless of their party. I appeal to the democratic instinct of those who opposed the Good Friday agreement. It is clear from recent results that the balance of people in Northern Ireland, from all traditions, has been willing to give the new order a chance. It behoves us to honour their aspirations for a lasting settlement.
I have always enjoyed speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Indeed, it has sometimes struck me that Ministers would be well advised to consider closely the perspectives with which many on the Government Benches disagree, as they unquestionably provide an insight to the attitudes of many people in Northern Ireland. I have great respect for people with whom I have, on occasions, disagreed intensely on Northern Irish affairs, but I do not question for a moment that they represent a significant view that must be taken into account. Their contributions are valid and necessary if a lasting peace is to be achieved.
I trust that even the sceptics among us will want to maximise the Bill's effectiveness. I hope that Conservative Members will participate positively. Some hon. Members may have assiduously opposed the agreement, but my early impression is that they, too, will add value to the debate.
If, like the majority of people in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the mainland of the United Kingdom, we support the agreement, we must understand that it cannot be renegotiated: a deal is a deal. As politicians, we must be particularly conscious of the fact that our word should be our bond. We would not enter into a business contract and expect to renegotiate it unilaterally afterwards, and so it must be with the Good Friday agreement. We would be showing bad faith to all those who voted for it in May if we tried to add conditions in the Bill that were not in the agreement. That is what the enemies of the Bill—those who resort to the use of violence, bombs, guns and coercion—seek to do.
People with strong feelings can still be manipulated by those behind the scenes who do not accept the democratic will. Our challenge is to show that they have no currency in influencing the Northern Ireland agenda. I do not believe that the new decision makers in Northern Ireland or the more established legislators in the Chamber will succumb to those who use violence and non-democratic means to try to destroy or harm the achievements that have so far been made.
There are still tensions: Northern Ireland politics is hot, but it is not burning. The challenge is to turn those tensions into positive energy that can drive Northern Ireland's economy and culture, and repair the damage caused by the hate and the dissonance.
I welcome the urgency with which the Government have introduced the legislation. Parliamentary time is a precious commodity: it converts directly into the political capital on which we all depend for our positions in the House. The urgency with which the Bill has been treated suggests that the good will of the Good Friday agreement is alive and well.
I hope that, in line with that spirit of good will, hon. Members will not clutter this debate or any other stage of the Bill with explanations unrelated to the agreement. I also hope that the Government, in their eagerness to thrust the Bill on to the statute book, do not overlook any important issues raised in the debates. I am glad that the Government will have the summer to reflect on the debate before the Bill is considered in the other place. Urgency is welcome, but cutting corners would be unforgivable.
The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Bill, and look forward to working with Ministers. Also, we welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to taking a sympathetic and flexible approach to amendments that will improve the Bill.
Finally, I admit that I am surprised we have got this far. At times I have felt positive, and at others I have felt a sense of despair. However, we have made it, and it behoves us all to do what we can to achieve a settlement of which we and Northern Ireland can be proud. We must create something that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland can turn into a living settlement and, above all, that turns the Good Friday agreement into a settlement that in Northern Ireland makes every day a good day in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and other hon. Members for their kind words. I welcome the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire back: it is a pleasure to see him again in one piece, and I am sure that all hon. Members would echo those sentiments.
This is a long, complex, difficult and mould-breaking Bill. It will take us into a new assembly, a new century, a new millennium and, I believe, into a new era of trust and agreement in the north of Ireland. Given its complexity, I thank the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for holding consultations, which were helpful to us. I have no doubt that they were helpful to other parties, and that the Minister will see us again for further consultations, because it appears that they will be needed.
The Secretary of State said that the Government will table amendments. We await those amendments either in this place or in the other place. As the Bill proceeds, clarification will be required.
I have one abiding commitment: the legislation must be based on the letter and the spirit of the agreement that we reached on Good Friday. The Bill must include provision for all the assembly business, for the north-south institutions, the Council of the Isles and for the constitutional commitments and guarantees given. This legislation is not negotiable. Everyone who signed the agreement has a duty not just towards the agreement, but towards the people of Northern Ireland who gave their mandate. It is a duty towards the other parties not present who signed the agreement. I should point out, lest we forget, that another sovereign Government signed the agreement. It is a duty on all of us who signed the agreement and who want to implement it to achieve lasting peace, stability and a new quality of life for everyone. We are the custodians of the agreement. We stand by that agreement in all its manifestations, in its entirety and its integrity.
Implementing the agreement will not be easy, as opinions are divided. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I have had and will have difficult roles to play. It is not a recipe for disaster, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) suggested. I do not see it as a joint presidency, as was implied in another speech. I see it as something much more important. It is an honest attempt by the two communities in the north of Ireland—nationalist and Unionist, Catholic, Protestant, and dissenters—to grapple with the problem that can be dealt with only on the basis of trust and agreement and by working together.
We stand by the agreement and we will stand with the people who have decided, in a referendum and an election, that this is what they want us to do. We shall implement their wishes as expressed in the referendum and in the election with fear of nobody and favour towards no one. I believe that we must proceed on that basis.
Our task will not be easy. We have functions under the agreement and the Bill in relation to the north-south ministerial council, the shape and operation of the new Assembly, a new civic forum, a new Council of the Isles, the designation of departments and the steerage of the creation of a new Executive. That would be almost enough work for a parliamentary Session; indeed, it might be enough for a longer Session. Unfortunately, we must ensure that the business is completed and the necessary proposals are made between now and 14 September, and we shall need the help of the entire community to achieve that. We shall need the help of all our colleagues in the House, as well as the assistance of the civic community in the north of Ireland. I shall return to that later.
We have been through a pretty difficult time—a crucible. I refer to Drumcree and Ballymoney. Like the people of the north of Ireland collectively, we had to go through a pain barrier—and it was certainly painful; but three lessons emerged from it, and we must learn those lessons. First, the issue of marches and parades, counter-marches and counter-demonstrations must be dealt with now, by every sector of our community. It cannot be left until we approach the period next year

when marches will take place. The heart of Northern Ireland cannot be made to bleed as it is now, every year, without a solution being reached.
The second lesson is that there are political agendas on both sides. There are street marches, and street protests. That is a fact of life: we must live according to it, and we must be aware of it in all our deliberations.
The third lesson is that we all pay the cost. We are talking about three white coffins coming out of a hearse, and about something in the region of £100 million going down the drain in the last few weeks. It may have been only £80 million or £90 million, or it may indeed have been £100 million. In any event, let each of us think of that in terms of our constituencies. How many schools, how many carers' wages, how many hospitals could have been financed by £100 million? We all pay the cost, so we must all do what we can to prevent such things.
I want to discuss three aspects of the Bill, with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will deal in more detail. First, our party and the nationalist community—in the negotiations, and now—have wanted a legal base for the north-south ministerial council. That will come as no surprise: we all spent two years trying to negotiate it, successfully in the end. Paragraph 1 of strand 2 states, very explicitly:
Under a new British-Irish Agreement dealing with the totality of relationships and related legislation in Westminster and the Oireachtas a North-South Ministerial Council to be established".
I want that to be carried through in the Bill.
In an early draft, there was a paragraph that continued the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, but it is no longer there. Clause 66 of the Bill requires the First Minister and his deputy to ensure participation in the council, and clause 68 allows the Secretary of State to set up implementation bodies during the period leading up to the transfer of powers; but, following amendments and further explanations, clause 26 of the original draft is no longer there. There may well be an argument that the establishment of the north-south ministerial council derives from an international agreement and not from legislation, but there is surely a requirement for an authoritative description of the council.
Concern has already been expressed about the human rights section of the Bill, and I share some of that concern. Substantial representations have been made. I understand from what the Secretary of State said that amendments will be tabled, and the Government will expand their thinking. I look forward to that happening before we finally decide on our position; but we will table amendments, and will try to ensure that both the spirit and the letter of the agreement underlie that part of the Bill.
Let me now deal with my final area of concern. In fact, "concern" is the wrong word; I consider it important. I believe that we must create a new civic forum. I suppose that many people see that as involving the "great and the good", but that assumption greatly underestimates the potential of the forum. I think that the forum—along with those who, like me, are elected to the assembly—has an opportunity to introduce a new dimension to life in the north of Ireland. I refer to the dimension of communities, and representatives of the various sectors. They will not just observe the political process; they will become, as representatives of a civic forum, a partner in that process, having responsibilities, having influence and being able to grapple with and solve the problems that we face.
I think—I know—that we have an opportunity to do something that is new and is needed: something that can be imaginative, but must deal with enormous problems. I believe that we will achieve that; I also believe that we will achieve it in a spirit, and a way, that will maximise public opinion in the north of Ireland.
The shadow Secretary of State gave advice to both Unionists and nationalists. I would never presume to speak on behalf of any of my Unionist colleagues in the House in regard to the acceptance of advice, but I can speak about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the nationalist community. Slowly, over many years, I have come to believe that each generation has a right and a duty to write its own history—that we cannot bind future generations, any more than we should be bound by the past that has been handed down to us. In that spirit, I believe that the suggestion made by the Secretary of State is right. We will not be bound, in terms of our actions, our imagination or our will to deal with that with which we have to deal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Bill fails utterly to live up to the Prime Minister's pledges and promises. At the time of the referendum in Northern Ireland—which has been much talked about this afternoon—we were led to believe that a range of issues would be dealt with properly before terrorist front organisations could be allowed to reap the benefits of the agreement. It has been admitted in the House that those pledges had a great influence on voters. As things stand now, IRA-Sinn Fein will be able to claim all the advantages without having to give up violence, without having to hand over a single bullet or an ounce of Semtex, and without even having to begin the dismantling of its terrorist machine.
The killing in north Belfast yesterday by republicans who are linked to the IRA demonstrates the necessity for this issue to be properly addressed and resolved. Gerry Adams has told us and the city of Belfast that the IRA has not gone away. The threat from other sources has not diminished. I am speaking about loyalist paramilitaries, who are also fronted in the Assembly by political leaders and who pose a real and continuing risk to the entire community. It is interesting to note that it is from their ranks that the police are interrogating people about the tragedy of the murders in Ballymoney. However, that is not given to the public. In other statements, the police are quick to say who they are interrogating and from which side of the community they come, but on this issue there is a wall of silence.
The police issued a statement that three Roman Catholic children had been murdered and they apologised for that statement because the facts were not so. In the home that night there were two Protestants, a man and a woman, and Mrs. Quinn. Three children were being brought up as Protestants, attending the Protestant school and Protestant churches. We know what happened and we know about the insinuations. I hope that no step will be spared and no stone will be unturned until the full truth of what happened in Ballymoney comes out. At the moment, some of those who are identified with the community that endorsed the agreement, who said they were for it and who were represented in the political life that brought about the agreement are being interrogated by the police.
In some respects, the Bill goes further than the agreement. It gives greater powers to Ministers on north-south issues than the agreement envisaged and set down in plain print. One of Irish republicanism's key objectives has been the destruction of the Union that binds Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill states that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 must go: it will be abolished by the Bill. The 1920 Act established the supreme authority of the United Kingdom Parliament over Northern Ireland. Some say that the removal of that Act is meaningless, but that ignores the massive effort by the pan-nationalist front to have that Act on the table. In particular, the Dublin Government campaigned to get rid of that legislation.
The Northern Ireland spokesman for the Conservative and Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), made some amazing statements at the Dispatch Box. They do not stand up to historical scrutiny, let alone the facts of the matter. We are told that everything in the agreement is balanced. I do not see much balance in the removal of the 1920 Act. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that other Acts, including the Union with Ireland Act 1800, are to be superseded.
We have been told that Dublin has amended articles 2 and 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution. How has it done that? Dublin has amended them by widening its claim, not on territory but on the people who live in that territory. Further, the changes that the south of Ireland says that it will make will be made only if the institutions with executive powers and functions for the whole of Ireland are set up. Until that happens, Dublin has the right not to proceed on the basis of the result of its referendum.
The 1920 Act will be abolished by this House at once, but the Irish legislation allows Dublin to revert to the original constitutional provisions for up to one year later if all-Ireland executive powers are not being implemented. Changes to the Irish Republic's constitution are provisional and conditional, while changes to Ulster's position within the Union are not so. In the referendum campaign, Northern Ireland people were bombarded by a series of promises, pledges and assurances by the Prime Minister and others who were increasingly desperate to persuade people to vote yes. The Bill and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill show how little regard the Government have paid to the real concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.
People were led to believe that IRA-Sinn Fein would not get into government without giving up violence for good and handing in at least some of their weaponry. The Bill shows that the most that will happen is that if the Secretary of State thinks that the Assembly should debate the removal of individual Ministers or parties from the Executive, she can refer the matter to the Presiding Officer. The crucial factor is that only a vote by Members of the Assembly under the consensus provisions can remove any person or party from office. Do we expect IRA-Sinn Fein to vote themselves out of office?
According to some hon. Members, the election victory was just as great as the one in the referendum. It should be noted that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has 28 votes in the Assembly. Those Unionists who oppose this matter also have 28 votes, and the right hon. Gentleman owes his position to the representatives of two paramilitary organisations. I have already spoken about those people. The House should not


think that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had overwhelming votes because, in the context of the consensus on the Unionist side, the majority was three.
The Bill is unique in its description of the First Minister and the second Minister. They are not first and second: they are co-Ministers. The Bill states:
A reference to—

(a) the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; or
(b) the chief executive member,

shall be construed as a reference to the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly.
There are two Prime Ministers—one from the Unionist side and one from the nationalist side. It is helpful that the schedule gives us the definitions of the delegated Ministers and their powers.
The Bill fails to provide adequately for a link between a party and the terrorist organisation that it fronts. Under clause 23, the only link is to a Minister of the party concerned. That gives plenty of loopholes for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to remain in office no matter what atrocities the Irish Republican Army carries out.
The interesting matter raised by Mr. Mallon—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh."] Pardon me. I should say the second Minister designate of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Donaldson: Of the north of Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I call it Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about clause 26, about which I wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not usually answer my letters speedily—in fact, he did not bother to answer my last three letters—but he answered that one very quickly. He insisted that the clause did not mean what I thought it meant. I was relieved that it was deleted when the Bill was redrafted, but then I found clause 66, in which the measure is written in another way. Will the Minister explain the difference between the original clause 26 and clause 66? I am glad that the second Minister of Northern Ireland thinks that the measure means what I thought it meant—we seem to be on the same wavelength, and I look forward to seeing the amendment that he says he will table.
The Bill forces Ministers not only to consult other members of a north-south body, but to make arrangements with them on transferred matters. That goes beyond the agreement. The Bill seeks to take apart the structures of the Union; it will put Northern Ireland under increasing influence from the south and will exert increasing pressures to destroy the Union.
The people of Northern Ireland know that. The Unionist people of Northern Ireland know it, as has been demonstrated by the division in the official Unionist party. Hon. Members should not think that they can ignore a substantial section of the community. Just as they cannot ignore the nationalists, they cannot ignore those who are at least 50 per cent. of the Unionist population. Hon. Members must realise that those people, too, have views that must be listened to and respected.
The lady who is the Social Democratic and Labour party Assembly representative for Portadown—

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Donegal lady.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know where she comes from, but I know that she said that those who voted no were outside the pale. "We are the real majority," she said, "and they are really nobodies." The nobodies may have greater influence than hon. Members recognise. I say that those nobodies need to be listened to carefully.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join in the applause that so many hon. Members have given to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and to all those who took part in the negotiations. I shall not elaborate on that too much, not only to spare their blushes, but because of the pressure of time.
My first point concerns human rights, especially the right to choose an attorney. We have heard bad news from Derry today—Lord Saville has rejected the requests of the families at the tribunal for better legal representation. I believe that that puts the inquiry on to the wrong foot; it will put an enormous amount of work on the lawyers working for the families of the deceased and their dependants.

Dr. Godman: About an hour ago, I was told about the inadequacy of the legal representation offered by Lord Saville. I join my hon. Friend in saying that that is a matter of profound regret.

Mr. McNamara: Yes. I hope that Lord Saville will reconsider his decision.
It is important that the proposed Human Rights Commission should be effective, should be seen to be effective and should be properly respected by the Government of the day. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was a brilliant body. It produced many fine reports that were strong on analysis and in their conclusions and recommendations, many of which—especially on human rights—were ignored by previous Governments. Sadly, even this Government ignored some of the recommendations on fair employment, which I believe should enjoy a proper status in the new arrangements.
The Human Rights Commission must have adequate powers—indeed, that must apply not only in Northern Ireland, but for the rest of Europe as a whole. At the Heads of Government meeting in Strasbourg, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed a document appointing a human rights commissioner for Europe. That was an important step, especially as the commissioner may well recommend that the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe use a human rights model similar to the one that we are establishing in Northern Ireland. It is important that we get that model right; we do not want to give the emerging democracies the opportunity to say, "They haven't got this in Northern Ireland. If the Brits don't need it, why do we?"
Three improvements must be made to the measures on the commission. First, the Bill should specify that the commission has the right to investigate human rights abuses where appropriate by public inquiry. Secondly,


the commission should have the right to initiate litigation in its own name; clause 57 denies the commission that right, although the Good Friday agreement said that the commission's role would include,
in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so".
That was not an either/or choice; the two were seen as complementary. I believe that the commission should be given back the right to bring court proceedings.
Thirdly, the commission is restricted to assisting only those individuals who bring cases under the Human Rights Act. That will—wrongly, in my view—prevent the commission from assisting individuals who want to bring cases with equally significant human rights implications under other legislation, such as cases involving assault in custody.
I know that some hon. Members will argue that the commission should not be able to litigate in its own name as amicus curiae because third-party cases will not apply under the Human Rights Act, but the Home Secretary has indicated that if a human rights commission were to be established for the United Kingdom in parallel to that Act, he would reconsider that restriction. It is of the utmost importance that the Human Rights Commission has that right in Northern Ireland.
I shall deal now with the Equality Commission. I join the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in wondering why some provisions have been included in the Bill, as there is no need for them. In fact, I wonder whether, as has been suggested, the old regime was throwing in something that would not be properly considered and which would in many ways preserve the status quo.
It is the Equality Commission which has caused the biggest hue and cry in Northern Ireland. Of the 123 submissions made in respect of the White Paper, only 29 supported the single Equality Commission. It is significant that one of them was from the Confederation of British Industry—I do not want to say anything about new Labour, as that would be very wrong of me. It is important to note that all the important institutions—SACHR, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fair Employment Commission, the Disability Council, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the agencies representing ethnic minorities—are against the idea because they believe that it has not been properly thought through.
It is no great matter of principle whether we have one Equality Commission or whether all the commissions remain. It is evident that the Equality Commission has not been properly thought out in terms of its relationship with other agencies, its staff or the money involved, but we shall not have the time to examine it properly. We have six hours next Monday to deal with all the equality issues.
In the past, these matters have taken days to examine in Committee. In addition, there is no need for this provision to be in the Bill. I also wonder whether it has been included as an excuse to avoid including the suggested further fair employment legislation. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, and ask her to consider whether this provision should be included.

We can examine the matter of the Human Rights Commission, but my right hon. Friend should reconsider the single Equality Commission.

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, we included it in the Bill in a bit of a rush because it is part of the Good Friday agreement. Not to have included it would have meant that the complaints would have been even greater. Yes, the structures are there, but if my hon. Friend reads the provision more closely, he will find that the four chief executives of the commissions, plus representatives of the other four groups concerned, can shape it as they want. If there is no difficulty with the principle, this provision gives them the opportunity to choose the format with which they can live most easily.

Mr. McNamara: That is being a bit jesuitical, if I may say that. The agreement refers to the British Government considering the matter and undertaking consultation. That consultation was abruptly brought to an end and there was no undertaking by any party to accept the proposal. It was a question of what was noted in the agreement. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again, because I believe it is wrong. I note that my right hon. Friend did not disagree with the notion that the proposal was a way of getting round the need for extra fair employment legislation.
I come now to the policy appraisal and fair treatment agreement and putting it out to private contract or tender under the Equality Commission. Mrs. Joan Smyth, the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said:
The responsibility to bring about equality should lie where the policies are made. And that is within Government".
Again, the Northern Ireland civil service has chickened out, as it has over earlier legislation and as it does all the time because it has always resented this fact. As the Assembly and Government Departments are going to have to consider it, the right place for it to be considered is within government so that decisions are referred to a strong, central body which can decide whether those decisions really meet proper PAFT criteria. Putting the matter at arm's length is a major error.
Finally, I greatly regret clause 79(5) which states:
A certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall be conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose.
That is the old clause 42 brought back again, something that we voted against and which we considered very wrong when we were in opposition. Now, we have the judgment in the Tinnelly case in Strasbourg. As I understand it—I was reading it in French, and it is a long time since I did French at school—Tinnelly has been upheld by Strasbourg. The original clause 42 and the current clause 79 are now outwith the convention on human rights to which, as we are told in the agreement and in statute, we should be paying attention. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would examine that point when we come to consider any alterations.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend said that she will be flexible. We have already tabled some amendments, and there will doubtless be more. She has been promised them like confetti at a wedding. It would be wrong to seek to affect the principles of or what is contained in the agreement, but I have to say that where matters are not


specifically spelt out in the agreement it seems that the Government have taken the de minimis line rather than looking to expand and be generous.
Human rights issues are going to be important not only for the people of Northern Ireland; how we deal with them will be an example to the rest of Europe and to the emerging democracies. My right hon. Friend has to be bold and not restrict the powers of the various bodies. They must be shown to be open and strong, able to initiate proceedings and investigations and to assist claimants, not merely reacting to propositions put to them.

Mr. David Davis: Like most hon. Members, I support the aims of the Bill and want to see it work. I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State, her Ministers and the Prime Minister and, indeed, to the previous Prime Minister for all the work that went into creating a formidable achievement.
Because of the understandable speed of preparation, some of the arrangements are less than satisfactory from the perspective of public accounting and accountability for United Kingdom taxes. I know that there was some rapid consultation with the Northern Ireland Audit Office in preparation for the Bill, but I do not believe that there was any discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General for the House who has a locus as we are dealing with UK taxes as much as with Northern Ireland money.
I shall talk briefly about a specific, relatively technical, but important matter—the scrutiny of expenditure in Northern Ireland of UK taxpayers' money under the Bill. If necessary, I shall table amendments in an attempt to correct matters about which I am concerned, but if the Government consider the points that I raise worth while, I should prefer them to introduce amendments.
I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office will do all they can to help the Government with a difficult, technical, House of Commons matter—although it is not as difficult as what the Secretary of State has already achieved.
Between 1921 and 1972, the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Parliament was funded from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund and scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, who reported directly to the Accounts Committee of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It was originally envisaged that Northern Ireland would be self-financing, but a series of ad hoc legislative measures provided for extensive subsidies from Westminster without ever correspondingly extending the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee or the National Audit Office.
With suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1972, the Northern Ireland Audit Office reported to the Westminster Public Accounts Committee.
The current position is that the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments is voted separately by Parliament on Northern Ireland estimates. The accounts of the Departments and other public sector bodies are audited and scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, and his reports are laid before the House and taken by the Public Accounts Committee. Currently, the House's Public Accounts Commission determines funding of the Northern Ireland Office.
The essence of the Northern Ireland Bill is to transfer to the new Assembly's Executive from Northern Ireland Office Ministers the responsibility for the Northern Ireland civil service. Because of the Bill, the House will continue to approve supply estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, including the allocation to the Northern Ireland Assembly paid into the Northern Ireland consolidated fund.
The key points about scrutiny and accountability in the Bill are, first, that the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General will lose his statutory powers to report to the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, the House—in the form of the Public Accounts Committee—will lose its powers of overseeing expenditure from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund, which is £7.4 billion, but will keep oversight of law and order expenditure, which is £900 million. Thirdly, the Bill will largely restore for the Northern Ireland Assembly the oversight, audit and scrutiny arrangements that existed before 1972.
The Northern Ireland Bill, like the Scotland Bill, does not give Parliament or the Comptroller and Auditor General any specific powers to receive reports on, or to investigate, the use of public funds once those are transferred to the consolidated fund for Northern Ireland. There is no provision for direct accountability to the House by the accounting officers who will head the Northern Ireland Departments.
The proposed arrangements raise questions about the adequacy of oversight that the House could exercise over United Kingdom taxpayers' money voted for the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. The issues are particularly significant in Northern Ireland, where the proportion of United Kingdom taxpayers' subvention is very high. As the Secretary of State will know, it is about £3 billion in 1997–98—which is almost 40 per cent. of total expenditure of £8.3 billion.
Within Northern Ireland, moneys issued from the consolidated fund will be subject to the Assembly's scrutiny under Northern Ireland legislation—principally the Exchequer and Audit (Northern Ireland) Act 1921 and the Audit (Northern Ireland) order 1987, which provide a framework for estimates, accountability and auditing by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General that is closely modelled on current United Kingdom practice. The 1987 order particularly ensures independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Northern Ireland Office's powers to undertake value-for-money investigations.
As a result of the overview of the Public Accounts Commission and the Public Accounts Committee, the Northern Ireland Office has developed in parallel with the mainland United Kingdom's National Audit Office. For that, I give my compliments and praise to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for his work on the Committee.
Therefore, in practice, the devolved Assembly will take over arrangements for accountability that closely follow Westminster practice and for public sector audit that are in line with National Audit Office statements. However, in principle—this is one of the two problems that I wish to raise—any current Northern Ireland legislation relating to the role of Comptroller and Auditor-General could be altered by the Assembly. That arrangement is very different from those for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as in each of those cases scrutiny provisions are written into United Kingdom law.
Therefore—for example—because the independence of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General is not stated in the Bill as United Kingdom legislation, the Assembly could dilute his independence by amending or repealing a relevant Northern Ireland order. Such a situation is not unusual—it has happened in Denmark, where Governments eroded the power of scrutiny. We will have to think about the possibility of such a situation developing in Northern Ireland not only in the next two years but in the next 20 or 120 years.
Furthermore, although the existence of the Accounts Committee in the previous Northern Ireland Parliament gives us hope that the Assembly will establish a similar committee, there is nothing to compel the Assembly to do so. There is also no precedent for a body equivalent to the Public Accounts Commission to determine funding of the Northern Ireland Audit Office independently of the Executive, as happens in the House.
The absence of any oversight by the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee of expenditure by the Northern Ireland Departments raises in this House serious issues of taxation without representation. There must also be concern about whether the brief audit provisions in clause 52 give the same assurance of independence to the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General as the Scotland Bill and Government of Wales Bill give to their respective auditors.
Those matters are particularly important for Northern Ireland for three reasons. First, as I said, the percentage of funding for Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is almost 40 per cent., which is the highest percentage of any part of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the history of management of public sector spending in Northern Ireland is not very good. In conversation with me, such management was described by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—I am sure that he will not mind my quoting him—as ghastly. Many management weaknesses have shown up in recent audit reports. Moreover, as the Secretary of State will know better than anyone, there is a history of paramilitary-based fraud in Northern Ireland. We should not expect that fraud or the related pressures to disappear overnight.
Thirdly, as we have seen in other parts of the United Kingdom, problems of waste and corruption are often endemic to authorities that are dominated over a long period either by single parties or by single coalitions. I support the power-sharing arrangements that we are creating for Northern Ireland and yield to no one in my admiration for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Nevertheless, in the scrutiny arrangements that we build into the Bill, we must plan against the very long-term effect of having one coalition in power, which is perfectly possible under the arrangements that we are making.
I therefore ask the Secretary of State to examine two issues. The first is the House's continuing right to knowledge and scrutiny of UK taxpayers' money given to Northern Ireland—even if that is only as a fall-back option for the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, to give him somewhere to go if things go wrong.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there is a coalition and no

effective opposition within a body such as the Assembly to exercise principles of adversarial scrutiny, his point about accountability and the necessity for some scrutiny by the United Kingdom is all the more valid?

Mr. Davis: That is precisely the point that I was making. For understandable and real reasons—[Interruption.]

Mr. McNamara: There are 28 opposed in the Assembly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) giving way?

Mr. Davis: No, I am not giving way, but I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman. The point about our arrangements is that we have a tradition of 130 years of structured scrutiny of the Executive that will not exist there ab initio. We have to ensure—I hope that the Secretary of State will see the reason for doing so—that there is structured scrutiny if, as is possible, there will be a single long-term coalition. In other countries in Europe—Austria comes to mind—extremist parties have developed simply because there has been a single coalition in power which has led to suspicions about how government is run. I should not like the same thing to be visited on Northern Ireland in 20 or 30 years' time.
I should like the Secretary of State, secondly, to examine the possibility of minoring the arrangements that we have discussed for the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office—in the Welsh case, in talking to the National Audit Office beforehand; in the Scottish case, in debate in the House—to guarantee that the independence of appointment, funding, choice of work and dismissal of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General and National Audit Office is written into United Kingdom legislation. If she does that, I shall do all within my power to facilitate the speed of the Bill's passage through the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I begin by welcoming the Northern Ireland majority commitment to the Good Friday agreement and by congratulating all those who played a leading role in achieving it. Although I sometimes feel the smallest frisson of disagreement or annoyance with the Government, I take great pleasure in what they have achieved in Northern Ireland.
Only days ago, we had reason to fear that it would all unravel, and that, once again, intransigence would win, so it was heartening that so many in both communities recoiled at the murder of innocent children and at the attacks on the police and the armed forces at Drumcree, declaring that they would have none of it. We owe much to those who have had the courage to stand up to extremists on their own side.
Courage is a much over-used word in politics: it usually means merely having the backbone to disagree with one's own side. The Labour Whips do not kneecap people or carry out politically motivated murders, however. We must put the courage of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and


others into its proper context. They showed true courage and played an admirable role, for which the entire British Isles should be grateful. I congratulate the Government on making it clear that they would not give in to extremists on either side.
The behaviour of one party has been less than admirable, however: the Conservatives have created unnecessary difficulties in respect of the Bill. For many years in opposition, Labour stood faithfully by bipartisan policies, but the Conservatives have shown themselves less than willing to fulfil the role that we accepted for so many years.
For some odd reason, the Bill lacks the resonance of the first sentence of the Scotland Bill. I recommend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the inclusion of similar wording. Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill reads:
There shall be a Scottish Parliament".
That simple ringing statement was noted throughout Scotland. A statement such as, "There shall be a Northern Ireland Assembly" might well have a similar effect in Northern Ireland.
Like the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly will have full freedom to legislate on matters that relate to the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Departments. It is interesting to see how often the Bill reflects the legislation relating to Scotland. Scottish Members are glad to have been of service.
The civic forum, which allows more women to participate, is a new development in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that, at long last, some half a dozen women have been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. More women were elected to represent Northern Ireland at that one election than in the entire history of Parliament. Women's voices will also be heard in the civic forum. As a result, social policies in Northern Ireland are likely to reflect more truly the community there, especially on matters of general interest and concern when no sectarian disagreement is involved.
There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill. The creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly have opened up a new approach to the governance of Northern Ireland. Irish politicians have also mentioned that point.
The Northern Ireland Women's Coalition is also to be congratulated on its contribution to the democratic process, as are the Government on being progressive enough to welcome the idea of the civic forum and establish it in legislation. I also welcome the legal underpinning given to the bodies mentioned in clauses 66 and 67. I have had only brief experience of the British-Irish parliamentary body, but, in a short time, I have seen how well elected representatives from the Republic of Ireland and from the United Kingdom can work together to the benefit of the island of Ireland. I have high hopes of those bodies, and of strand 3 in particular. The assurances that we built into the three strands have played a fundamental part in overcoming doubt and suspicion and making progress.
A thought occurred to me about the strand 3 body, which, through the good grace of the Government, did not specify that Scottish representatives had to be members of the United Kingdom Parliament. It has been accepted

as highly appropriate that newly elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly should have the right to participate. No one would have objected if the Government had not taken that decision—if they had stipulated membership of the United Kingdom Parliament alone. There is a key point to be made. I am sure that participation of representatives of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will be very welcome to people in Ireland, particularly because of long-standing historical connections.
It is pity that no Scottish National party Members are present in the Chamber, as I should like to put the point to them. If Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, it would not necessarily be able to participate in that body. Its role would depend on the terms of whatever agreement had been reached in respect of its separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that the majority of people in Scotland want to say goodbye to having any influence on events in Northern Ireland. As no SNP Member is present, we cannot find out whether the SNP has a policy on that, or whether it has been trashed on the internet in recent weeks.
I do not believe that the equal opportunities provisions were added to the Bill as an afterthought. I am pleased that our progressive Government realise that equal opportunities are a major aspect of our lives and have written that principle into the Bill. When I saw the White Paper and the list of ways in which discrimination would be unlawful, I used it to improve the Scottish legislation.
Scotland does not have a separate equal opportunities commission, but it will continue to have an EOC office relating to United Kingdom legislation. There is much to be thought through as to what should happen in Northern Ireland. Unnecessary difficulties could be created by the existence of separate legislation on equal opportunities in different parts of the United Kingdom. I should like Northern Ireland to have the same degree of autonomy that we have in Scotland, so I shall follow the debate with interest, and may sign some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The important principle is that there should be autonomy in practice which might lead to universality in legislation.
Finally, I should mention the inclusion of the European convention on human rights, which was particularly welcomed by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg a few months ago. COE members representing 40 European states welcomed it, because the entire process devised to achieve a way forward for Northern Ireland could be a useful guide to resolving conflicts in other parts of Europe. The progress that we are making tonight will not only affect Northern Ireland but may provide lessons for other parts of the world. For that reason, it is all the more welcome.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke of courage. She congratulated the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their courage. Without in any way attempting to detract from their contributions, may I say that it is easier to be courageous when one has the big battalions on one's side and enjoys the plaudits of all the major parties in the House?


Everyone—particularly politicians—would like to be loved. All would like to be on the side of the angels. All would like to be in favour of peace, justice, goodness, equality, love and hope—all sentiments in which both democrat and dictator have, from time to time, wallowed. Those concepts of false sentiment and cheap emotion are the coin in which too many politicians increasingly deal. It enables them to ignore the real issues, suppress the unpalatable differences and dress everything up in spin and spoof. By the time the electorate wake up to the realities of what really matters, it is too late.
Nowhere was that more apparent than in the conduct of the referendum. It was plain that every artifice of government, propaganda, pressure, money and control of the media was brought to bear on the people of Northern in order to obtain the yes vote that was obtained. Indeed, the propaganda in which the Government engaged would instantly have been declared unlawful in the other part of Ireland. Legislation in the Republic provides that, on any referendum issue, both sides of the debate must be fairly and adequately reported. That did not occur in Northern Ireland, where the yes campaign was supported in 70 per cent. of coverage on Ulster Television and the BBC, and in 71 per cent. of coverage in the three major local papers, the Belfast Telegraph, the News Letter and the Irish News. Curiously, that almost exactly reflects the results subsequently obtained in the referendum.

Mr. Öpik: Does that not suggest that, in fact, the media merely reflected the public mood?

Mr. McCartney: No; with respect, I do not think that it does anything of the kind. As I have said, such imbalanced reporting would have been unlawful in the Irish Republic, which has rather more experience of referendums than we do.
During my entire professional and political life, I have been dedicated to the principles of democracy, equality and justice, which I have endeavoured to serve. I loathe and detest any violence that serves any political end; I have condemned it unequivocally. During the 14 months that my party spent in the negotiations, I refused to have any dealings at all with representatives of loyalist paramilitary parties, who were present on the basis that they were representative of armed organisations. I made it clear that, regardless of whether Sinn Fein was ever admitted, I would not enter into substantive negotiations with any party—loyalist or otherwise—that was a front organisations for terrorist groups that retained arms. My position, and that of my party, has always been entirely consistent.
It has been suggested by some hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that the Belfast agreement and the Bill are triumphs of democracy over terror. I believe that they are nothing of the kind. They represent the appeasement of terror—not just by the present Government but by successive British Administrations. They represent allowing those in Sinn Fein who have fronted an organisation that has murdered, maimed and pillaged both communities in Northern Ireland for 30 years to enter government, while, at the same time, permitting the IRA to retain all its weaponry and explosives.
Any suggestion that the IRA will decommission over the next two years is a myth. The IRA will not decommission and Sinn Fein will not call on it to do so.

All that the agreement and the Bill that reflects it do is to call on parties that front paramilitary organisations to use such influence as they may have to persuade those organisations to decommission.
It is said that it does not really matter whether such organisations decommission, as long as they do not utilise their arms and explosives. The continued ownership and possession of such arms and explosives is an on-going form of political leverage to ensure that those who would use violence obtain their ultimate objectives. It is not without significance that Sinn Fein—or Sinn Fein-IRA, since, in the words of the Secretary of State, they are inextricably linked—views the agreement and the Bill that gives effect to it as purely a transitional phase. En route to what? En route to its ultimate objective of an united Ireland.
Much has been made of the principle of consent. It is said that, because clause 1 suggests that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom until the majority decides otherwise, the constitutional future of the citizens of Northern Ireland in the UK is in some way guaranteed. That is far from being so. As far back as September 1988, in the most comprehensive and detailed statement of Labour party policy on Northern Ireland that has ever been made, the whole score for both the agreement and the Bill was written. A process of creating institutions that would first allow consultation, then harmonisation, then full Executive powers to cross-border or all-Ireland bodies was envisaged.
It was accepted by the creators of that policy—one of the signatories being the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that there could be no immediate disengagement from Northern Ireland, which was the real object of party policy. The policy had to be conducted by such a method that there would be
no sudden withdrawal which might make disengagement impossible".
It was, and is, necessary to establish a series of institutions—under the Bill, the institutions are the north-south ministerial council and the all-Ireland implementation bodies—that create, perhaps on the European model, a functionally and factually united Ireland over a period of time. That explains why Sinn Fein-IRA openly expressed the view that the arrangements are transitional. There will come a time when, if such institutions expand, and are dynamic, as proposed in the framework document, Ireland will be factually and functionally united. At that point, the question of consent will arise—but consent to what? It will simply be consent that has become either inevitable or unnecessary: a consent to the formal transfer of the legal sovereignty of Northern Ireland to a united Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: Is the gist of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that the Government are really engaged in a sinister plot—clearly with the Opposition's support—to bring about a united Ireland by one means or another? Does he think that that is the objective of the legislation?

Mr. McCartney: Yes indeed. Why should anyone be aghast at my suggesting that? The Labour party policy document, which was signed by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who was then the shadow


Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and countersigned by the present Secretary of State, states exactly that. The object of Labour party policy was to disengage from Northern Ireland and to create a united Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman does not possess a copy of that comprehensive statement of Labour party policy, I shall provide him with one.
Hon. Members talk about the protection provided by the need for consent. There is no protection in that, because the agreement provides for institutions that will circumnavigate such a principle of consent and allow only for a consent to the formal transfer of legal sovereignty. That dichotomy between the institutions required to obtain factual and functional consent and legal sovereignty is also spelled out in that party policy document. Mr. Kinnock, then leader of the Labour party, hailed the document as the only way forward. It explicitly set out a policy whose elements can be identified in the framework document and, more effectively, in the agreement and the Bill. I am not suggesting that off my own bat. It is for the Government to show that their proposals are significantly different from what they set out in their detailed and comprehensive policy document on Northern Ireland in September 1988. The facts are there for all to see.
Sinn Fein-IRA are one of the strong parties in the yes camp. Their endorsement of the agreement was heartily supported at the Ard Fheis when the agreement was put for approval. Speaker after speaker at the Ard Fheis said that the document was a transitional agreement and that they should advance on the political front, but should retain all their weapons, and certainly should not give up the threat of armed terror, particularly on the mainland, which had been such an effective weapon in advancing their political cause.
Those people, who are inextricably bound up with the IRA—that means that Sinn Fein can never be separated from the IRA—are to be entitled under the d'Hondt rule to two seats as Ministers in any proposed Government. They merely have to sign up to the democratic principles of non-violence. They will have no problem with that, because they will simply say, "We are not the IRA. We have no weapons. We are a party with an electoral mandate." They have said that all their political life. Everyone knows that they are synonymous in personnel, political objectives and policy.
Since 10 April, when the agreement was signed, Sinn Fein-IRA have been actively involved in acts of terror. In the communities that they exclusively control, they have been kneecapping—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat. His time is up.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, together with other Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office, on their achievement in bringing the process as far as they have. I also congratulate and commend the courage of hon. Members and others who helped to forge the agreement. Bearing in mind the contribution of the

hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having been able to move on from 1988 and helping to forge a new consent-based solution.
However, my loudest congratulations are for the people of Northern Ireland. On 22 May, a majority of 71 per cent. of them supported the Belfast agreement. On 25 June, 74 per cent. of them voted for candidates seeking a pro-agreement mandate. With those votes, the people of Northern Ireland changed the political landscape of the Province for ever.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when introducing the Bill, in passing the Bill and devolving power to an assembly of Northern Ireland politicians, this Parliament will merely be setting up the necessary legislative framework to give expression to the desire of the people of Northern Ireland. That is a good enough reason to welcome the Bill, but there are others.
The strength of the Belfast agreement lies in its recognition of the value of diversity. Paragraph 1 of strand 1 says:
This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland which is inclusive in its membership
and is able
subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interests of all sides of the community.
The morning after the Assembly election count was completed, The News Letter confirmed in its page one view how successfully that objective had been achieved, describing the elected Assembly as
a democratic institution so broad in its diversity that it should become the envy of the world and a model for other divided communities to follow.
If that achievement is to be maintained, we must learn lessons from the past. A principal lesson from the past 25 years in Northern Ireland is that, in a divided society, if democratic institutions lack the necessary safeguards to ensure the participation of all sections in the decision-making processes, they will fail and the initiative will pass to undemocratic forces. For that reason, among others, the parties to the Belfast agreement placed great store on the importance of safeguards, setting them out in paragraph 5 of strand 1.
The achievement of those who forged the Belfast agreement will be lost if the Bill does not put in place the necessary safeguards to protect the new democratic institutions of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and those who serve them have ensured that the Bill does so. A principal safeguard is the requirement that key decisions of the Assembly are taken on a cross-community basis. The parties to the Belfast agreement reached consensus on the definition of a "cross-community basis". That phraseology translates into "cross-community support" in the Bill, but the definition remains the same.
The Bill sets alternative quotas for measuring cross-community support. Those quotas will apply to, among others, the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the passing of a resolution by the Assembly that a reserved matter should become a transferred matter or vice versa, the number and functions of Ministers and, in clause 34, the majority required for an issue that has generated a petition of concern from 30 or more Members.
The imposition of quotas on the democratic process can be a device to deny the will of the majority. That happened when the 40 per cent. hurdle was insinuated into the referendum on the Scotland Act 1978. That was a wrecking device designed to thwart the will of the Scottish people, and it succeeded. However, the measure of cross-community support in the Bill has come from the political representatives of the Northern Ireland people and, importantly, has been overwhelmingly endorsed in a referendum held on a simple majority basis, although the yes vote in the referendum would have satisfied the cross-community support test.
As important as cross-community support is the safeguard of a comprehensive commitment to human rights and the equality agenda, also included in the Belfast agreement. All who have a commitment to the protection of human rights and to equality of opportunity will welcome the new institutions set forth in the Belfast agreement and legislated for in the Bill.
The incorporation of the European convention on human rights in the law of the United Kingdom was a clear commitment of the Labour party at the general election. The Human Rights Bill will work best in conjunction with a human rights commission with powers and statutory responsibilities, such as those set out in part VI of the Bill.
On Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill, I argued for a human rights commission for the UK for that very reason. I argued that there was a need for a commission to promote ideas of human rights and to help promote the development of a human rights culture. Consequently, I welcome the setting up of a commission in Northern Ireland and hope that it will act as a catalyst for setting up a similar body in Britain.
There are those who will argue that the last thing Northern Ireland needs is another unelected quango. However, for a human rights commission to perform its necessary functions in Northern Ireland, it must be independent of both the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, since part of its function is to ensure compliance by both of them with human rights legislation. I have reservations about the lack of transparency in the appointments process as set out in clause 54, but we will no doubt return to that matter in Committee.
For the reasons I have articulated—and because I am also persuaded by the arguments in the document "Creating an Effective Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland" by Brice Dickson of the university of Ulster—I welcome the provisions in the Bill. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome the establishment of the Equality Commission and the attendant imposition of a duty to promote equality of opportunity on certain public authorities, while outlawing discrimination by other public authorities.
I draw the attention of Ministers to the differing descriptive definitions of public authorities in clauses 61 and 62. Clause 61 requires public authorities to "promote equality of opportunity", whereas clause 62 sets out where it would be unlawful to discriminate. I see no reason to have differing definitions of public authority in the clauses, and would welcome an explanation on the divergence.
In the long term—and like some of the parties who responded to the White Paper on the subject—I favour incorporation in the Northern Ireland Human Rights

Commission itself of all the functions and duties to promote and police the equality agenda. I also hope that a Minister for equality will be appointed by the Assembly.
Those are long-term goals and, in the meantime, I believe that the aggregation of expertise and experience and the pooling of the resources of the four existing equality bodies in one significant commission will enhance the equality agenda in Northern Ireland.
The lack of confidence in the institutions of Northern Ireland has its roots, to some degree, in a perception of inequality by a significant part of the community. The Equality Commission legislated for in the Bill, and reflective of yet another safeguard from the Belfast agreement, will give significant weight to the equality agenda in Northern Ireland and will go a long way towards helping to sustain the confidence of that part of the community in the process of political reform.
For those reasons—unlike the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I argue that the rightful place for the provisions is in the Bill. I am supported in that by the provisions of the Belfast agreement. I draw the attention of those hon. Members who doubt that the proper place for such legislation is in the Bill to strand 1, paragraph 5(e) of the Belfast agreement which sets as one of the safeguards for the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland
an Equality Commission to monitor a statutory obligation to promote equality of opportunity".
There is no better place than the Bill for that.
I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to one matter that is troubling me. There may be a simple answer. Under head 10 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill, broadcasting—and, in particular, the British Broadcasting Corporation—is listed among the matters reserved to the UK Parliament. In my hurried examination of the Northern Ireland Bill, I cannot see whether broadcasting—and, in particular, the BBC—has been reserved to the UK Parliament. It may be reserved, but I should welcome a statement on how that will be achieved, as it is not obvious in the Bill.
I ask about broadcasting in particular because the matter created some controversy in Scotland. There were those who wanted to get their hands on the BBC; I have no doubt that there are those in Northern Ireland who want to do that, too. For consistency of devolution, that issue should be addressed.
I remind the House that, in supporting the Belfast agreement and in electing the Members of the Assembly, the voters of Northern Ireland formed an historic alliance between Catholic and Protestant and nationalist and Unionist peoples. We should not forget that they did so to bring stability and lasting peace to their community. We must not let them down, and we will not be doing so by passing the Bill.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I am a Unionist who believes in Northern Ireland remaining within the United Kingdom, and believes that the people of Northern Ireland—Roman Catholic and Protestant—would be best served in matters of equality and justice by the United Kingdom Parliament remaining in charge of all affairs within Northern Ireland. None the less, I recognise that


the policy of the Government is to proceed with devolution throughout the United Kingdom—to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, perhaps, to the regions of England. We must fit in to the overall plan for the UK.
I served in many of the various devolved institutions in Northern Ireland—in the Parliament from 1965 to 1972, the subsequent first Assembly, the constitutional convention and then the second Assembly, which collapsed in 1986 following the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Yet again, we have another attempt at devolution in Northern Ireland. From my experiences in those four previous devolved institutions at Stormont, I fear that some of the weaknesses that were inherent in them and brought about their collapse exist yet again in this somewhat tortuous formula for the return of devolution to Northern Ireland.
It is a tortuous formula and a complicated Bill. None the less, the Belfast agreement—its proper name—has been welcomed throughout the United Kingdom and Europe, where it was approved in the Assembly of the Council of Europe. It has been welcomed throughout the United States. It was supported in a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the elections for the new Assembly. Indeed, the empty Press Gallery throughout this debate leads one to assume that the journalists have concluded that the Belfast agreement is safe and home.
That is not the case. There was considerable support for the Belfast agreement; it has slipped considerably in recent weeks—let us not pretend otherwise. To do so is to deceive the House and the wider public. Why has that support slipped? It is not because of the terrible deaths of the three children at Ballymoney. It is not because of the impasse at Garvaghy road, Drumcree. It is because one participant in the agreement is not honouring what the agreement was intended to achieve.
When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke today, I was surprised that, although he mentioned Drumcree and Ballymoney, he never once mentioned how the IRA is breaching the terms of the Belfast agreement, and is doing so in his own constituency. A 1,400 lb bomb near Armagh city luckily did not get into the centre of the city at the weekend because the vehicle carrying it got a flat tyre. A 600 lb bomb at Newry courthouse in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was luckily defused by the security forces.
In Newton Hamilton in the hon. Gentleman's constituency recently, dozens of Roman Catholic and Protestant businesses and homes were destroyed by a 1,000 Ib IRA bomb. At the weekend, a Roman Catholic was murdered by Provisional IRA, or so it was stated. A man was badly beaten up by the IRA—a Mr. Kearney, a Republican from the Ormeau road, who would have died had the RUC not arrived in time.
Today, all hon. Members have received a faxed letter from Families Against Intimidation and Terror—which is not a pro-Unionist organisation, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That letter says:
The current Bill makes no reference to paramilitary violence being a bar to membership of the Assembly Executive which effectively means that Sinn Fein Ministers only need to say they are opposed to violence to stay in office while the IRA continue to be involved in violence.
There is a major problem.
Undoubtedly, the Belfast agreement was a setback for Provisional Sinn Fein—the IRA. They said that they would not agree to anything unless it was a united Ireland. Well, there is no united Ireland. They said that they would not agree to the removal of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and the territorial claim of the south of Ireland over Northern Ireland. Well, the people of the south of Ireland have now agreed to remove the territorial claim. Then Sinn Fein said that it would never go into an assembly at Stormont. Well, some of its members were elected to the Assembly, and they are there now; they attended the first meeting. There has been progress on that front.
Moreover, clause 1 says:
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
Clause 5(6) says:
This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland.
That is the exact guarantee that the Scotland Bill will give the people of Scotland when it becomes law. There is progress, therefore, on constitutional matters.
Subsections (10) and (13) of clause 15 state that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can also hold ministerial offices. Rightly, Members of Parliament who are Members of the Assembly have had great deductions from their salary. I am assuming that a First Minister or Deputy First Minister, if he is also a Minister, does not take both salaries.
I come to the key issue of the removal of Ministers from office, to which clause 23 applies—especially subsection (8). The clause says that Ministers must be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. The Dublin Prime Minister has said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked together. Today, the Secretary of State confirmed that that was her position [Interruption.]—she is nodding yet again—in reply to a question that I asked at the start of the debate. However, she then passed the buck. She said, "But the removal of Ministers is not really for me; it is for the Members of the Assembly." Of course Sinn Fein—the IRA—will not expel its own members. No way.
Where does the SDLP stand on that issue? That is the point on which we need clarification. That will be the turning point for the success or failure of the Belfast agreement. It is time that we teased the SDLP out into the open, to give assurances to the people of Northern Ireland that it is fully committed to peaceful and democratic means, and that it accepts that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked together. We want to hear the SDLP using the same phrase as our Secretary of State used today, and as the Dublin Prime Minister has used several times. Once we hear that from the SDLP, we shall proceed to obtain other assurances.
On clause 56, I warn against too freely giving financial aid for legal advice and support on human rights issues. When I was a member of Castlereagh borough council, the Fair Employment Commission handed out money left, right and centre to people to enable them to claim compensation. There was one case that we knew that the claimant had no chance of winning; the council fought it and won. However, although we won the case, we had to pay the legal expenses and then charge the ratepayers for them. A borough council may do that, but private


individuals cannot afford to fight. They cannot pass on the charge to ratepayers; they must pay themselves. Often, an organisation, especially an employer, accused of discrimination will settle a case for a small amount of compensation instead of fighting it, although it may not have been guilty of discrimination.
Interestingly, although the Bill provides funding for the north-south ministerial council, it does not even allocate any money for the British-Irish council, which is of much greater importance to most people in Northern Ireland. It is not mentioned. Strangely enough, although the Assembly is setting up a seminar on all kinds of issues—such as human rights, the administration of various Government Departments, and the north-south ministerial council—there is no seminar on how the British-Irish council would work. Incidentally, has anyone ever told the Governments of the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey that they are involved in the British-Irish council? Perhaps, if they have been told, the Minister will tell us the response of those three Governments.
Finally, I want to make a quick point on a constituency matter. Schedule 2 says that Crown property is an excepted matter. As I understand it, the foreshore of Strangford lough is Crown property. It comprises a major part of my constituency. Is it an excepted matter? Does that mean that we cannot discuss Strangford lough in the Assembly? That is an important issue for me as a local constituency Member, and for my colleague, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who represents Strangford village but not the rest of Strangford lough.
I have supported the Belfast agreement, although I have had doubts about some of the issues. As this is a Second Reading debate, I shall support the Bill in principle tonight, but there is no guarantee that I shall support it on Third Reading unless we receive further assurances on the key issue of the exclusion of people who are inextricably linked to paramilitary organisations when such paramilitary organisations are still carrying out murders and bombings.
Not only can the Secretary of State help on that matter as amendments to the Bill are debated, but the SDLP—to which she passed the buck earlier this afternoon—must clarify its position, because in the Assembly, by cross-voting, the majority of the nationalists must vote for the expulsion of such people if that expulsion is to take place, and we must have some assurance from the SDLP that it will do so.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. Anyone who knows my track record concerning Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland will know that I am delighted by the Bill. It may be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that I have had to deal with; it is certainly one of the most significant that I have ever spoken on.
Some of the speeches have not encouraged my hopes as much as they might have, but the Bill has every hope, when it becomes an Act, of ending one of the saddest legacies of the history of these islands. We must make it work. There must be a constructive approach. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and I agree on many things—if we leave Ireland out, on most things—but, with respect to him, we must not score points, however robustly. We must do the constructive job that he did at Stormont to bring about the Belfast agreement.
We are not out of the wood yet. Anyone who has had anything to do with the agreement—not least the Secretary of State, who has done a marvellous job—knows that we are living on a knife-edge in every respect. The agreement creates an enormous opportunity, but it also creates the dangers of failure and having to start all over again.
We can make the agreement work only if we get together. In Northern Ireland—with all respect to Northern Irish Members who are present—that is starting to happen. I welcome the tone of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Both speeches were constructive. Each patently took into consideration the agenda of the other community. That is what all this is about, and will increasingly be about. The 71 per cent. vote in the referendum was a vote of both communities. The cross-voting in the election on preferences was again of both communities. That is enormously significant.
We must get the act together on the mainland as well as in Northern Ireland. I especially welcome the tone of the speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who adopted the right approach on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition.
All of us can and should take some of the credit for making the agreement succeed. Once or twice, I have trembled for the bipartisan policy, not least on the Opposition's vote on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, about which I shall say nothing now. It is essential that the bipartisan policy remains and is strengthened.
The full weight of all the political parties in the House, as has been apparent the speeches today, must be behind the Bill, pushing it through to become an Act, and making the Act work. The record of the Conservative party in government in recent years shows that it has been far from ever playing the Orange card again. It brought about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The efforts of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started a process that has been ably continued by the present Government. If we all get behind it, it can succeed.
As hon. Members will realise, I am telescoping my speech so that others may speak. On constitutional structures, I shall deal with the parliamentary aspect, which has been referred to in other speeches, but perhaps not in as much detail as I am qualified to speak of the workings of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body, which has been of great use.
With reference to the parliamentary aspects of the Bill, strand 1 gives us the Assembly, which is a vital component that fits in with United Kingdom constitutional development. Strand 2 makes provision for a new parliamentary forum from the Assembly and the Oireachtas. That introduces another parliamentary aspect, which may initially lead to some confusion.
Strand 3 establishes the British-Irish council, which involves not the institutions with primary responsibility, such as the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel islands—it is high time that there was an institution that brought them into the picture—and others, if appropriate, as well as representatives of the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. By definition, the task of the British-Irish council is consultative. No doubt it will be a useful body, although it may be somewhat bland in decision making.
Strand 3 also sets up the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. There is no parliamentary shadow at that level. The Belfast agreement states:
The elected institutions of the members will be encouraged to develop interparliamentary links, perhaps building on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body.
That provides a link between the two sovereign Parliaments. We shall no doubt return to these matters in Committee. There is a need to think through the concept of parliamentary links under strand 3. There must not be too many bodies, but they must cover all aspects, allowing sovereign Parliaments to question sovereign governments.
On the release of prisoners and decommissioning, from the remarks that we have heard about clause 23 and other clauses there is no doubt those will form a considerable part of our debate. I shall lay out some general points.
It is fundamental to the peace process that it seeks to contain and bring the extremes into an accepted constitutional system. That system will succeed only if the extremes are within it. They are in it at present because there are no absolute preconditions. They will not be able to remain within it if unrealistic conditions are set for decommissioning or the release of prisoners.
Those two issues are complementary. Prisoner release has enormous significance on both sides of the sectarian fence. It will do more than anything to signify the end of war, which will help to deliver the real decommissioning that we all want. I believe that it will come, but it would be counter-productive to try to achieve too much too soon.
Let us all—the whole House—unite behind this worthy Bill, get it through and grant peace to the island of Ireland, a peace which has been too long delayed and is much deserved.

Mr. Peter Robinson: When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill to the House, she said that it was the Government's intention to put into legislative form the agreement reached on 10 April. It is worth the time of the House to consider how closely that has been done, and to use a few tests to determine whether it has been done properly.
This is the first major debate that we have had on Northern Ireland since the Assembly election—the last major debate was on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. I remember being told by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Prime Minister had played a key role in securing a yes vote in the referendum, and that that yes vote had produced a positive result in both the Unionist and nationalist communities.
We were told that a majority of nationalists and a majority of Unionists had voted yes. I made it clear that, statistically, it was obvious to anyone who knew Northern Ireland that a majority of Unionists had voted no. So that there is no doubt, I place it on the record now that the results of the Assembly election proved my case, and clearly show that the majority of Unionists are against the Belfast agreement. The majority of Members returned for the Unionist tradition are against the agreement. The majority of votes cast were cast for Unionist candidates who were against the agreement.
When the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) says that there was a substantial body of opinion in Northern Ireland against the agreement, that represents an overwhelming majority of his constituency, and a majority of the Unionist community, where he rightly says support for the agreement is decreasing as the days and weeks go past. He would know that better than most, as deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist party.
The right hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers recently that even one of his party's Assembly Members admitted that, although she had voted yes in the referendum, if she were asked to vote again today she would vote no to the agreement. She was not counted as one of the Assembly Members who would vote against the inclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA activists in a Government of Northern Ireland, and executive powers for an all-Ireland body.
That is the backcloth against which the House should consider the future of the Belfast agreement. The test that we should use is the commitment given by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland to the people of Northern Ireland in relation to what the agreement meant. They were vociferous at the time of the referendum. The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear on 6 May in the House of Commons that substantial decommissioning was required before sentenced prisoners could be released or Sinn Fein-IRA personnel could be in government.
In his Hillsborough speech, the Prime Minister went into great detail about the criteria that would have to be met before the Provisional IRA representatives, or representatives of any loyalist paramilitary organisation—although that does not arise, because they were roundly rejected by the Unionist electorate—could get into government.
In an interview with Des McCartan of the Belfast Telegraph, the Prime Minister was asked:
How can you guarantee there won't be people in the Assembly who, by others' perception, are linked to the men of violence?
The Prime Minister replied:
Because the agreement provides very clearly that people can be removed or excluded from office, if they are pursuing non-democratic or violent measures.
When he came over the Northern Ireland and gave his five pledges, one of them clearly stated that those who used or threatened violence would be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland. In the Belfast News Letter of 14 May, the Prime Minister said:
People need to know that, if they are sitting down in the room of the executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it… That can't happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can't happen.
I suspect that we are about to see whether it can or cannot happen.
I am sorry that the First Minister designate is not in the Chamber, as I should like him to show where in the Bill is the commitment that he gave the people of Northern Ireland on 9 May. In an article in the Belfast News Letter, he said:
I think the unionist community has confidence in itself. We have the capacity ourselves"—
that is, the Unionist community—
to exclude Sinn Fein from office, if we so wish, because we are going to have a majority in the Assembly, now that is clearly going to be the case. Why then should people worry what an Assembly


will do if they are going to have the majority in it? The Agreement itself is absolutely clear that only people who have a genuine commitment to peaceful means and a democratic process can accept office. Those words were fudged in the past, but they were fudged by governments. It's not going to be a question for Government in the future, it's going to be a question for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.
Where in the Bill is the right hon. Gentleman's commitment that Unionists can exclude Sinn Fein from government? He knows that there is no such provision in the Bill—and I suspect that he knew as much when he wrote the article. One of his colleagues got very hairy-chested about the matter. The Ulster Unionist party member David McNarry vowed that Unionists would not back down on the handover of weapons before Sinn Fein could take up positions in the Assembly. Mr. McNarry, who stood with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann at Castle Buildings after the agreement was signed, said:
We are not going to be softies on this issue.
Those commitments stated that there had to be decommissioning before Sinn Fein got into government. They declared that Sinn Fein could not get into government if it did not renounce violence for good. There is no such provision in the Bill. The only provisions in the Bill are either that Sinn Fein will put up its hands and surrender, saying, "No, we cannot take the pledge of office, because it requires us to have given up violence for good"; or that the Assembly will take a political vote that puts Sinn Fein out of, or excludes it from, office. On that basis, Sinn Fein would have to vote itself out of, or exclude itself from, office, or the SDLP would have to do it. Can anyone honestly see the SDLP voting to put Sinn Fein out of the Government of Northern Ireland? I do not think that that is a remote possibility.
In a previous debate on the sentences legislation, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made it clear that he wanted the Executive to be inclusive, and that no preconditions should be set down in terms of membership of that Executive. As far as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland are concerned, their pledges have not been honoured in the Bill. They have once again betrayed the people of Northern Ireland.
Apart from there being no effective means of excluding or removing people from the Government of Northern Ireland, another promise was made to the people of the Province. They were told in clear terms by both the Prime Minister and the First Minister designate that the north-south body would be accountable to the Assembly. I challenge the Government to show where the Bill states that the north-south body or the implementation bodies will be subject to the will of the Assembly.
There was considerable discussion about clause 26 in the draft legislation. I noticed hon. Members around the Chamber looking with some bewilderment at clause 26 of the present Bill, but, of course, the original clause is not there. Clause 26 of the draft Bill stated:
A Minister or Northern Ireland department may…consult on any matter with any authority in Ireland…enter into agreements or arrangements with any such authority in respect of any transferred matter".
We made it clear to the draftsmen that that went well beyond even the scope of the agreement. The clause gave power directly to Ministers to enter into arrangements and agreements with their counterparts in the Irish Republic

or with any authority in the Irish Republic. Ministers would not be accountable to the Assembly or their Executive colleagues.

Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ministers' decisions and agreements should be subject to ratification by the rest of the Assembly?

Mr. Robinson: I believe that the work of the north-south body and the implementation bodies should be subject to the will of the Assembly, but it is not under this Bill. It is essential that those bodies are brought under the Assembly's authority.
The wording of clause 66 in the current legislation is almost identical to that of the old clause 26. It uses the same words, with a slightly different introduction regarding participation. The Minister must—not only for my edification but for the benefit of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who is concerned that clause 26 has disappeared—tell us what the effect of clause 66 will be. Under that clause, can a Minister make an agreement or arrangement—albeit one that does not require legislative input—with his counterpart in the Irish Republic without the north-south body's being aware of it or the Assembly's approving of it? That is a simple question, and I hope that the Minister will respond before the debate concludes.
Hon. Members referred to several matters in relation to Northern Ireland's constitutional position, which is outlined principally in the Bill's opening clauses. It is very clear that, far from the Bill's leaving Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, it introduces a transitional state. The Bill moves Northern Ireland from its full and rightful place within the United Kingdom out on to a limb; it is being pushed towards an all-Ireland state. That is undoubtedly the Bill's political intention, and I believe that its provisions will encourage that eventuality.
As far as the Union with Ireland Act 1800 is concerned, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann told us at the time of the referendum that it would be unaffected. That was clearly a misleading statement. Clause 2 makes it very clear that the Act is affected: it is superseded by this Bill. That is the whole import of clause 2.
Clause 1 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may call a poll if she believes that people might wish to leave the United Kingdom and form a united Ireland.
Why should going into a united Ireland be the only option for which the House would legislate? Is the House taking upon itself the right to say, "We shall divorce Northern Ireland and at the same time tell the people of Northern Ireland with whom they will have to live"? That seems an outrageous proposition for the Government to put forward.
If the Government are saying that if the people of Northern Ireland want to leave the United Kingdom, they will make the necessary arrangements for them to do so, they are entitled to do so. However, they are not entitled to say, "If the only option is to go into a united Ireland, you can go in that direction, but anything else is outside the ambit of what the House is prepared to legislate for." The House does not have a right to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "We shall allow you to leave the United Kingdom but only if you go into a united Ireland," and allow them to do so only by simple majority voting in a poll.
When voting is referred to elsewhere in the Bill, we find references to cross-community voting, consensus voting and parallel voting. Those are the requirements. However, when it comes to leaving the United Kingdom, a simple majority of one will be sufficient, thank you very much.
It seems outrageous that everyday decisions must be made on the basis of consensus because it is believed that consensus is required in a community as divided as Northern Ireland, but the most major and fundamental change in the life of the people of Northern Ireland—taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland—can take place by means of a simple vote. That is an absurdity: I trust that the Government will examine the amendments that are tabled on that issue, and allow either a weighted vote, as is done in many constitutional votes throughout the world, or a cross-community vote in the Assembly before a poll can be called under schedule 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: On moving the Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that this was an historic Bill. I think that that is a true description of it. The Bill will lead to statute law that will embrace and embody an historic agreement, which I call the Good Friday agreement, which was so painstakingly constructed line by line over two difficult and demanding years.
However, the tenor of the terms of that agreement took much longer to develop and evolve, to identify the problems that we faced and the solutions that might apply to them, and to establish a consensus on the relationships that must be addressed within the north of Ireland, within Ireland, and within the east and west.
The agreement is soundly founded on the pillars of non-violence, equality of treatment and esteem, full participation by the greatest cross-section of the people's representatives and a sound endorsement by the vast majority of the people of Ireland, north and south.
I hope that the Bill will enable the two communities in Northern Ireland to work in harmony together for the greater good, without the fear of domination or the fear of total victory by one side over the other. It is my hope that, by this working together, we in Northern Ireland can evolve to a normal democratic society that is free of violence, intimidation and sectarianism.
My party, by its strict adherence to only democratic and peaceful methods of political persuasion, has clearly illustrated the utter futility of violence and coercion. My response to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not in his place, is that the history of my party clearly illustrates its total abhorrence of violence from any quarter. The guarantees that the hon. and learned Gentleman and others have mentioned that are required from my party were fully implemented when it signed the Good Friday agreement, which itself is an eschewing of any attempt to use violence, or the threat of violence, for the pursuance of a political objective. The hon. and learned Gentleman

mentioned many events that seemed to prove that certain parties to the agreement were thwarting or violating their commitment to the agreement.
I am not privy to the intimacies and nuances that construct the IRA, but I understand, as an outsider, that many of the bombings and atrocities that have been referred to were conducted by the very people who are trying to bring down the agreement, who call themselves the Continuity IRA or some other such name. As a lay person in that context, I do not accept that there is collusion between the two. There may be, but I can make a judgment only from where I stand.
The coercion and the violence pursued by others have been at great cost to human life, limb and property. It has left us a legacy of great personal tragedies and trauma, which will take many years to assuage. The violence of loyalist and republican paramilitaries was the greatest single hindrance to finding an accommodation between the communities to enable us to move forward.
The coming together in the Assembly of a wide spectrum of political representatives—an executive and administrative Assembly for the people of Northern Ireland, with its north-south and east-west dimensions—is the vehicle by which we can learn to work, to live and to evolve socially and politically together. The struggle towards that consensus has been difficult amid violence, which touched almost every family, and sectarianism, which poisoned nearly every relationship.
It has now been clearly shown that violence in Ireland can achieve nothing in political terms or in respect of political advancement, and that it was an obstacle to agreement. Unfortunately, individuals and small groups will think that there is a future for the use of violence, but we, as a community that is knitting together, can eschew those people and deal with them as we evolve into political maturity.
The acceptance of the validity of divergent political aspirations and the holding of each in equal esteem will enable us to set aside the constitutional debate as the primary matter of our political debate. Although the constitutional aspirations of all will always remain a valid and laudable objective, the way is clear for much more meaningful dialogue about economic development, social care and the evolution of our society into more normal forms of democracy and relationships. The expansion of our horizons beyond the Six Counties to the whole of Ireland through north-south and intergovernmental administerial bodies, and their further expansion to the Council of the Isles and to western Europe, will enable us to progress more comprehensively and cohesively to the development of the new society to which I have referred.
It is important to consider the Good Friday agreement and the Bill not as a solution but as the beginning of a process to address the problems that have dogged us for so long. We in Northern Ireland are being given the opportunity to address our economic and social ills by ourselves and to participate in the broader outreaches of our relationships within the island and with our neighbours.
That new beginning is an opportunity for us all, but it is also a challenge for us all. I hope that those who oppose, find fault with and, indeed, in many ways fear the agreement will give it a fair trial, because it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and the will of the people of the Republic of Ireland, that it be given a fair trial.


Many assets and advantages can be obtained through the agreement and working together for the common good of north and south.
The Bill translates as best it can the delicate and intricate agreements of the three relationships in the Good Friday agreement. Many aspects of the Bill require further teasing out and, like other hon. Members, I note the Secretary of State's intention to listen carefully and with a sympathetic ear to what has been said, and to table amendments to the Bill, if that is appropriate and necessary.
Valid concerns have been expressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Committee on the Administration of Justice about the human rights clauses of the Bill; they must be listened to, and those fears must be addressed in dealing with the component parts of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Groups dealing with equality of opportunity, gender equality and disability legislation feel threatened by embodiment in the greater umbrella of the Equality Commission. If the Secretary of State, as she hinted at the Dispatch Box in answer to a question, could produce amendments that would ensure that those separate and distinct executive functions of the Equality Commission could be seen to be self-standing, that would go a long way towards addressing those concerns.
My party welcomes the Bill as an expression of many years of labour, endeavour and suffering. Members of my party have been the victims of the violence which we are accused of insidiously or half-heartedly supporting. No other party in the north of Ireland has evolved from a non-violent origin. Those who try, by snide innuendo, to attribute to my party support, tacit or otherwise, for violence do us and the community that we represent a grave injustice.
We have struggled hard over many years in difficult circumstances to keep burning the light of democracy and persuasion which are the only way forward in Ireland. Indeed, we would go so far as to claim that our single-track mindedness has enabled us to persuade people who had taken violence as a way forward to see that it was not in their interests, or the interests of the people whom they were supposed to represent, and that the only way to make progress as a society in Ireland was through the democratic process. I resent being classified as a fellow traveller of violence.
My party will support the Bill. We cannot tonight go into the details of the amendments that we shall table, but I hope that, at the end of the long sittings that we shall have over the next two weeks, the Bill will give full expression to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, which were expressed clearly in the referendum, despite what was said to the contrary.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I am one of the Northern Ireland Members who voted against the agreement. On the constitutional issues, as a Unionist I support the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland because it is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or political affiliation. In social and economic terms, Northern Ireland is better off within the United Kingdom. I was born a British citizen, and I want to remain one.
How does the Bill strengthen my British citizenship? I believe that it weakens my position as a British citizen by placing a question mark over it. Clause 1 provides for

a poll to be held, at the whim of the Secretary of State, to determine whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join a united Ireland. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, the only alternative that we are given to remaining within the United Kingdom is to be part of a united Ireland. There are other options that the people of Northern Ireland could pursue, but the Bill contains no provision for the Secretary of State to take those into account. It simply confers on the Secretary of State the right at any time to hold a poll if he or she believes that a majority would vote in favour of a united Ireland. That is significant. Why does a united Ireland appear to be the only alternative to remaining within the United Kingdom? Could it be that this process is designed gradually to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom? That question must be answered.
Many Unionists are wrongly accused of being paranoid about a united Ireland. I do not believe that a united Ireland is feasible from an economic or social perspective. The United Kingdom is a multicultural, multi-ethnic society and can best accommodate the cultural differences and the diversity of identities that exist in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a united Ireland could ever accommodate that diversity of culture and identity. Based on what I read in the Bill, I believe that there is an agenda on which a united Ireland is the only alternative to remaining part of the United Kingdom. That must be challenged.
I welcome the establishment of an Assembly. Unionists have long strived for that, because we wanted the restoration of proper, local, democratic government on a par with other parts of the United Kingdom, which we have not had in Northern Ireland since 1972. However, I am concerned about the manner of the Assembly. I am afraid that it will be hamstrung by the enormous number of checks and balances that have been built into the system. There is a real danger that the Assembly will get—to use local parlance—bogged down with those checks and balances.
Unfortunately, the degree and extent of those checks and balances militate against the building of trust between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. They build into the system the notion that Unionists and nationalists are distinct and different. The voting strengths in the Assembly will be perpetuated, and the divisions in Northern Ireland will continue in perpetuity because of those checks and balances. Is that the way we should go? Will those checks and balances lead to a healthy, proper democracy in the Assembly?
My most major concern is that people who are linked to terrorist organisations will become Ministers in the government of Northern Ireland. The prospect of the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA holding ministerial positions in the government of Northern Ireland is an affront to democracy. Sinn Fein-IRA have not wholly embraced the democratic process. They are not fully committed to exclusively peaceful means.
I shall refer to two incidents that occurred at the weekend, when the IRA were supposed to be under a ceasefire. The family of Mr. Andrew Kearney are in no doubt—even if the Secretary of State is—about who murdered him. They say that it was the IRA who murdered him, as does the organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror, but the Secretary of State has to wait for the evidence. It is a pity that she did not wait for the evidence on the murders of the Quinn family in


Ballymoney before she and others pointed the finger and demonised the Orange institution. I condemned those murders in the House last week: they were tragic and despicable murders, as was the murder of Mr. Kearney. The political representatives of the IRA, who are accused of murdering Mr. Kearney by his family and by Families Against Intimidation and Terror may soon become Ministers in the government of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Vincent McKenna was assaulted on the Ormeau road. He was prepared, from a republican perspective, to put his head above the parapet and criticise Sinn Fein. His reward was to be beaten up by an IRA gang. The Secretary of State wants evidence. Is Mr. McKenna's evidence not good enough? He says that he recognised some of his assailants as senior members of the IRA. Is that not evidence on which the Secretary of State could base her conclusions about the IRA's commitment to exclusively peaceful means?
The reality is that there is no effective means by which Sinn Fein-IRA will be prevented from taking up a ministerial position in Northern Ireland in a few weeks' time. That is a major deficiency in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said, the Government have failed to provide an effective mechanism to exclude from the holding of office—not just to remove from office—those who have not committed themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The evidence exists that the IRA is not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the terms of the Bill, if the Unionists were not prepared to vote in cross-community terms, this House—and others—would immediately accuse them of being those who had brought the Bill to an end, rather than the terrorists who have been trying to do that all along?

Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the test will soon come. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is not present now, said that no one could question the commitment of the SDLP to peaceful means. We shall see. Soon, the SDLP will be required to vote on whether Sinn Fein-IRA should hold ministerial positions. We shall then see whether the SDLP is prepared to demonstrate the fulness of its commitment. In my opinion, Sinn Fein-IRA is not fit to hold government office in Northern Ireland.
The Bill proposes that a north-south ministerial council be established, because that was part of the agreement. The establishment of the council provides for co-operation between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government.
I have some anxieties about the ministerial council. I do not see in the Bill the kind of accountability that we were promised. We were told that the council would be fully accountable to the Northern Ireland assembly, but I do not see that explicitly expressed in the Bill in the way in which I, along with others—including colleagues who are members of the assembly—would like it to be expressed. I think that the Government will have to examine the whole question of accountability.
Many share my fear that Irish nationalists hope to use the north-south ministerial council as a means of creating an all-Ireland dimension that will be about the creation of

an all-Ireland Government, through the harmonisation of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic and through the creation of all-Ireland executive bodies. That is what these so-called implementation bodies are: they are all-Ireland executive bodies. They will be given power by this Parliament to exercise power and authority over the whole of the island of Ireland. Those who have said that there are not all-Ireland bodies with executive powers need to read the Bill, and need to understand that there is provision for the creation of all-Ireland bodies with executive powers. I have no doubt that Irish nationalists will want the process to be accelerated to the point at which we have, in effect, an all-Ireland Government.
Clause 68 provides for the Secretary of State to empower the implementation bodies, but one wonders what will happen if the assembly collapses. Will the implementation bodies be disbanded or prorogued, or will they continue to exist? The agreement provides for the assembly and the north-south ministerial council to be totally interdependent—one cannot operate without the other—but what of the implementation bodies? Can the implementation bodies operate if the assembly collapses? We need to know, but the Bill does not spell it out. The real reason for the Assembly and the north-south ministerial council being interdependent is so that Unionists will have to acquiesce in the evolution of an all-Ireland Government if they are to retain their positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I have concerns about the Bill which carry over from my concerns about the agreement. I make it quite clear that my view, which is shared by many of my colleagues, is that, as democrats, we will not countenance the holding of ministerial office in the government of Northern Ireland by those who are linked to terrorist organisations that continue to be responsible for murder and violence on the streets of Northern Ireland. We will not support that, and I hope that the Government will step back, look at the Bill and ensure that terrorists and their political representatives do not become Ministers in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) puts a perfectly legitimate Unionist case for strengthening the United Kingdom, but, with respect, he overlooks profound constitutional change throughout the United Kingdom. The UK has changed, largely as a result of the Scottish referendum decision on 11 September last year and the Welsh referendum. In terms of constitutional reform, this will prove to be a remarkable year in parliamentary history.
I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to her ministerial colleagues and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I gratefully acknowledge the small number of Northern Ireland political representatives who have sought to bring about constitutional reform through peaceable and democratic principles and methods.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill is a constitutional milestone, but that is an understatement. She is aware of my view that the Assembly should be housed in a new building. We in Scotland are to have a new Scottish Parliament which will result from an international architectural competition. I thought that the


model that was presented by a Scots firm should have won the competition, but the Secretary of State for Scotland and his estimable colleagues chose a firm of Spanish architects.
Hon. Members have spoken about a future debate between the United Kingdom and a united Ireland. Perhaps that debate will focus on the issue of federalism versus a united Ireland. In Scotland, the more intelligent elements of the chattering classes are debating federalism versus separatism. Matters are changing dramatically. The Northern Ireland Bill, with the Scottish and Welsh legislation, will have profound intended and unintended consequences. For example, the House will experience considerable change over the next year. I assume that Grand Committees and some Select Committees and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland questions will disappear. This House will pass no Northern Ireland, Scottish or Welsh legislation and eventually, whether some of us like it or not, as a result of such constitutional reform, we shall have to discuss a reduction in the number of Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish Members.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: No. I have waited too long to make a speech of a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me on this occasion. I usually give way to the charming fellow.
In the years ahead, we shall not be able to duck a debate on such reductions.
I have reservations about a number of clauses. For example, clause 10 states that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland will refer conflicts between the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When we debated the Scotland Bill, I suggested that there should be a national constitutional court made up of representatives from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. That idea was dismissed, but I still believe that it is worth arguing for.
Clause 27—about which I completely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—allows for vacancies in the Assembly to be filled through by-elections, substitutes or any
other method…as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
I long to see a Northern Ireland Assembly, a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly discussing and legislating on everyday matters. As in other assemblies and Parliaments, vacancies should be filled only through by-elections. I disagree with the idea that substitutes should be found to fill vacancies.
Clause 62—I have made known my views on this—should be extended to include other forms of discrimination. It mentions only religious belief or political opinion, but I believe that that definition must be widened. Part VII deals with the creation of a British-Irish council. Despite what has been said, that council must eventually lead to the demise of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body.
I think that we are on something of a constitutional helter-skelter, and I am delighted to support the Bill, just as I was to support the Scotland and Government of Wales Bills. I have some reservations, but the United Kingdom will never be the same—and thank heavens for that.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I begin by reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) in congratulating both the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their election—or selection—as First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the incipient Assembly.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire Mr. Öpik)—unfortunately, he is no longer in the Chamber—on his return to the Opposition Benches. He was much missed in Committee considerations of Northern Ireland business, and it is good to see him back more or less in one piece. He said—it may have been a throwaway comment—that he hoped that the Conservatives would participate constructively. The Government have admitted that the Bill was prepared in record time. It is not a Scotland Bill mark II or even a Government of Wales Bill mark II; it is unique, not least because Northern Ireland had a Parliament for almost 50 years. I reiterate the Conservative party's support for the agreement. Conservative Members want the Assembly to work, and to work well, but a rushed Bill will always have defects and difficulties, and the duty of the House is to ensure proper scrutiny, especially when legislation has had to be put together in such a limited time.
Many hon. Members have alluded to the difficulties in the detail. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, like other hon. Members, queried clause 66, which deals with the establishment of the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish council. He questioned whether the wording of the Bill was true to earlier agreed drafts in the talks process leading to the Belfast agreement. The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) challenged clause 23, which deals with the exclusion of Ministers. They pointed to an interpretation whereby the clause could exclude Ministers only once they were in place, and could not prevent them from taking up their posts at the outset.
Furthermore, we heard from the Secretary of State's own lips—I wrote this down at the time and hope that it is accurate according to Hansard—that the Bill was needed, among other things, to fill a number of "practical gaps" in the agreement. I trust that that was not a slip of the tongue, because I agree with those sentiments whole-heartedly. No agreement can hope to cover all the practical aspects of making it work on the ground. Many of them will, by their very nature, be legalistic. They need to be specific, incapable of misinterpretation, and clear to all parties to the agreement. That should be the aim of the House and those of us who have elected to scrutinise the Bill.
We welcome the Secretary of State's admission at the outset that the Bill is not yet finalised and that the Government are open to constructive amendments. I give an assurance from the Opposition Benches that that is our intention. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
The relationship that is crucial to the success of the Assembly under strand 1 was referred to by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh; it is the Ulster Unionist-SDLP axis. I have seen it working for many years in Northern Ireland, particularly at local council level. Both sides of


the community—nationalist and Unionist—have worked together in community groups and on partnership boards, particularly the one in Londonderry and the one in Belfast, so I have no qualms about believing that the two political parties can work together at the higher level of the new Assembly.
I should think that the objective of all Governments since 1974 has been to end the direct rule that was implemented at that time. I should say that direct rule itself has achieved several things: it has been fair; it has been efficient, in the main; and it has been an effective method of government. I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann who referred to bad government and to the running down of the civil service during the period of direct rule.
Of course, there were defects. Much of the legislation was passed by Order in Council, which did not enable local Members of Parliament to have much of a say. Also, Ministers were often not local. Indeed, I was accused of being a carpetbagger when I first arrived in Northern Ireland. Ministers in Northern Ireland have considerable power, but little direct accountability is seen on the ground. There is no local government in Northern Ireland on the level that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. All this leads to a democratic deficit. It is the aim of the agreement and of the Bill, which seeks to give a legal framework to that agreement, to put right that democratic deficit.
We have tabled some 39 amendments to date, and one new clause. There will no doubt be more. Indeed, many have been promised in this debate. There have been numerous hurdles on the way to a settlement in Northern Ireland, beginning, as many have said today, with the work done by the previous Conservative Government and culminating in the Belfast agreement and the referendum. Each new hurdle seems to loom larger.
We now have the critical responsibility of ensuring that the legal framework on which the successful working of the Northern Ireland Assembly, among other things, will rest, is written in an unambiguous and unequivocal way that is understood and accepted by everyone who is wholly committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. It is indeed a mammoth undertaking, and we need to get it right.
I trust that the Government will realise that those sentiments are what lay behind the Opposition's stance on the Bill. If a constructive approach is being invited, the Government will not find Opposition Members backward in coming forward.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). As he said, in the next fortnight, we will be considering amendments to the Bill, in Committee, on Report, and in the other place.
This Bill is very different in its conception and in the approach taken to it by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is based squarely on, and incorporates,

the agreement. It has been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland: we hope, therefore, that it incorporates not only the words but the spirit of the agreement.
As events have happened in record time—the agreement was reached in April; the referendum was held in May; elections to the Assembly and its first meeting occurred in June and July—the Bill, which has more than 80 clauses and many schedules, will inevitably have to be amended. The Government will not only have to pass their own amendments: we will have to take into account sensible amendments made by the official Opposition and by hon. Members from other parties, particularly those representing Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mackinlay: And from the Labour party.

Mr. Murphy: At the beginning of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of by-elections and substitutes. Although I shall return to that issue in Committee, I can tell him now that the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that substitutes rather than by-elections represented the proper way of dealing with vacancies, as that system will maintain the Assembly's balance. There may indeed be a case for by-elections—for example, if no substitutes are offered, or if substitutes refuse to take seats—when vacancies have to be filled. By-elections may be held in such cases. We will also have to take into account the Registration of Political Parties Bill. Moreover, paragraph 6 of schedule 14 to the Northern Ireland Bill will ensure that orders that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have to produce will remain in force after devolution.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) made a very interesting and useful speech. He said that the House should keep a close interest in Northern Ireland—and, of course, we shall. He also raised a matter of concern to himself and the Conservative party—removal and exclusion from ministerial office in Northern Ireland. On Thursday, there will be considerable debate on that matter. However, for now, I shall say simply that the agreement essentially says that the Assembly will decide whether Ministers should be excluded from office. It seems to be clear that that is what both the agreement and the Bill say. Several hon. Members have raised that issue.
We will have to examine the pledge of office—which mentions non-violence—and ways in which the Assembly itself can deal with matters on cross-community votes. We will have also to consider the points that the Prime Minister made in Balmoral, outside Belfast, which are included in the Bill, and, in forming a judgment and informing the Assembly's presiding officer, my right hon. Friend will have to take into account whether she thinks that those matters have been breached. We will have a full-scale debate on those matters on Thursday, when I am sure other points will be made.
I particularly agreed with the right hon. Member for Bracknell when he said that the principle of consent is uppermost in the Bill. At its very start, the Bill refers to the fact that only the majority of the people Northern Ireland, by consent, will decide their fate. It is so important that that principle is mentioned at the very start of the Bill, incorporating the agreement itself.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made an interesting and important speech in his new capacity as First Minister for Northern Ireland. He made detailed references to the executive powers in the Bill, particularly those in clause 18. I can tell him that they relate only to the prerogative and other powers that are vested in Her Majesty and exercised by the First Minister and his deputy. They may be exercised through the Department, but most ministerial powers are vested in statute and are not affected by the clause. We shall, however, consider the matter further in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman referred—as did other hon. Members—to clauses 66 to 68 and the relationship between the Assembly and the north-south ministerial council. As he knows, the initial implementation bodies are to be agreed in a shadow north-south ministerial council. They will be established by formal agreement between the two Governments with legislation by order under clause 68. After devolution, the Assembly will have full power to enter into further agreements by virtue of schedule 2(3)(b). Any legislative or financial consequences of such agreements must have the agreement of the Assembly. Ministers are bound by the pledge of office to act in accordance with any decisions of the Executive Committee. No laws can be passed and no money can be spent by the Assembly on matters regarding the affairs of the north-south ministerial council unless the Assembly is in agreement. Again, I am sure that we will consider that in further detail in Committee.
I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point about Orders in Council, as would any democrat. However, there are difficulties regarding business in the House that we have to consider in the next few weeks. Inevitably, the amount of business involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be less than it was before devolution, but we shall have to consider the matter. I know that, for many years, the right hon. Gentleman and others have made the point that Orders in Council, which are unamendable, are not as good as ordinary Bills which have to undergo the full legislative process.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the vexed issue of the Equality Commission, which has raised its head across the Floor of the House today. We shall look particularly at his point regarding the absence of reference to the relationship between the Assembly and the Equality Commission. There may well be a department for equality, but whatever the circumstances, there is a relationship, and it needs to be examined. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the one-stop shop. It makes sense for those who are troubled by matters with which the Equality Commission deals—equal opportunities for women, matters concerning disabled people, fair employment or whatever—to be able to consult one umbrella organisation to find out how they are affected as individuals and beyond that.
A number of hon. Members have said that the structures that incorporate the Equality Commission and other bodies should not disappear completely, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has found a compromise between an Equality Commission and the other directorates. That is another matter to be considered later.
We shall consider carefully the points made by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the financial provisions. There is no intention of moving away from the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, but we need to examine the matter further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised a number of issues. I pay tribute to his work as chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body. I am sure that no hon. Member can match his condemnation of terrorism. He made a significant speech. We certainly have to consider carefully what happens to the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body once the Assembly has taken on its full powers. I believe that it will have an enhanced role in another capacity, so we shall have to wait to see how it operates.
We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) back in the House discussing Northern Ireland matters. He was quite right to say that the Bill gives the people of Northern Ireland a golden opportunity to govern themselves.
I agree that we will have the summer months to reflect on possible improvements to the Bill. I should emphasise that, owing to the gap between the consideration of the Bill in this House and in the other place, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, ministerial colleagues and I will have an opportunity to consult political parties, particularly those in Northern Ireland, as well as others represented in the House and other bodies, on where we go on issues of controversy and concern.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) also spoke in a different capacity—as Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, for what I suspect was the first time. We all agreed with him when he said that we are entering a new era of trust and agreement. He was right to say that he, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the First Minister, represent the two main traditions in Northern Ireland. He also rightly pointed to their enormous work load over the next few months and weeks. They are charged by the Assembly with producing reports on departmental portfolios and the north-south ministerial council by 14 September.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh highlighted the human and financial cost of the past few weeks. He also made specific reference to clause 66, which has replaced clause 26. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the same issue. I should like to deal with both their points. The north-south ministerial council is to be formally established under the British-Irish agreement by an exchange of notes between the two Governments. The Bill provides the necessary legislative basis for the ministerial council to operate. Schedule 2 confers full powers on the Assembly and Northern Ireland Ministers to enter arrangements and agreement with the Irish Government. The draft clause 26, to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred, re-enacted section 12 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, but, on further reflection, it was felt that clause 66 more properly reflected the agreement. Indeed, it allows only agreements in the context of the north-south ministerial council.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was right to point out—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—what he thought were several omissions on human rights. The agreement is silent on some aspects of the Human Rights Commission, such as


the right to call witnesses in evidence. It is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult Northern Ireland parties further during the next two months precisely because the agreement is not clear on the issue.
We all agree entirely with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the civic forum should play a vital role in the new process. I know that he and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann are charged with establishing guidelines on how it should operate.
The hon. Member for North Antrim spoke of the removal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It is replaced by clause 1, which accentuates and emphasises the principle of consent. The hon. Gentleman knows that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution have changed, too. I covered earlier his point about clauses 26 and 66.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North raised the issue of the Equality Commission, to which I have already referred. The Fair Employment Commission and the bodies that represent voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland are very much in favour of an Equality Commission. We believe that the four chief executives of the current commissions can shape the structure of the new commission to such an extent that we can arrive at a sensible compromise. I agree with my hon. Friend on the need to consider clause 79 in the light of the Tinnelly case.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, made a very useful and important speech. He rightly referred to the financial aspects of the Bill and the need for proper scrutiny of spending, the need to combat fraud and corruption and the need for the House to be able properly to oversee Northern Ireland expenditure. He made comparisons with Scotland and Wales. We have taken considerable note of what he said. He can rest assured that, in Committee and beyond, we shall be taking the matters very seriously into account and will come back to him on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) welcomed the measures on equality and made a useful comparison with Scotland. She is a great supporter of the political developments in Northern Ireland in recent months.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred to my party's 1988 policy document on Northern Ireland. He and I have discussed the issue many times. I suspect that we shall continue to disagree, but I assure him that our policy has changed. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister were responsible for that change. A glance at the relevant documents shows considerable differences between our policy then and our policy now on issues such as agreement by consent in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scotland—[HON MEMBERS: "Kilmarnock and Loudoun."] I was out of the Chamber at the time. I have "My hon. Friend for Des Browne" written here, which is not right either. He made some important points. He asked why clauses 61 and 62 were different. We have had a look at that and we are not quite sure ourselves, so we shall come back to him on the reasons, particularly for the differences between the 1973 Act and clause 61. His points on human rights and

equality have been taken into account. He also raised schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill. As for Scotland, broadcasting is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, as laid out in paragraph 25 of schedule 3.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) made a number of interesting points. We shall take most of them into account. He is right that the Human Rights Commission must look at its budget carefully and spend the money as wisely as possible. Spending on the British-Irish council will be a matter for the two Governments. We do not think that that will require a great deal of money, but legislation will not be necessary. I hope to meet representatives from Jersey, the Isle of Man and Guernsey this week. I am sure that I shall find time in my busy diary to do so, perhaps in their respective islands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) also referred to British-Irish relations. We shall take his points into account. I pay tribute to his long involvement in relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland.
I did not agree with most of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, but he never expected me to. He will have an opportunity to raise the issues about which he spoke, particularly clause 23, on Thursday.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made an interesting and passionate speech. I agree that we should give the agreement a fair trial.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) talked about consent. I do not agree with his interpretation of the agreement. The Assembly has checks and balances and we shall consider the issue as we progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made several useful and important points, as did the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. We shall deal with those in Committee.
The past two weeks have seen some horrific events in Northern Ireland, with many despairing of the future. However, the will for change is too strong to go back to those conflicts and terrible tensions of the past 30 years. The people in Northern Ireland have voted for a new political landscape. The agreement was based fairly and squarely on an agreement that the parties forged—not the Irish Government or the British Government, but the Northern Ireland political parties. That is the strength of the agreement, allowing communities to work together and laying down sensible co-operation arrangements between both parts of the island and between the two islands, tackling the great issues of human rights and equality.
Above all, the Bill gives back to all the people of Northern Ireland the right to govern themselves, and now in a way that respects both traditions. The Assembly is up and running, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are in office. We pay tribute to them for the wisdom and leadership that they have shown. They, like us, know that the agreement represents the hope and aspirations of all those in Northern Ireland who yearn for peace and stability for the generations to come.
I unreservedly and enthusiastically commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 9.

Division No. 340]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allan, Richard
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Allen, Graham
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Baker, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Banks, Tony
Dawson, Hilton


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dobbin, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Doran, Frank


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Berry, Roger
Edwards, Huw


Blackman, Liz
Efford, Clive


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blizzard, Bob
Ennis, Jeff


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burnett, John
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Goggins, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caplin, Ivor
Gorrie, Donald


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cotter, Brian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle Lindsay





Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Moss, Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Norris, Dan



Oaten, Mark


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Hara, Eddie


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Öpik, Lembit


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pendry, Tom


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pickles, Eric


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pickthall, Colin


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Pike, Peter L


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Plaskitt, James


Laxton, Bob
Pond, Chris


Lepper, David
Pope, Greg


Levitt, Tom
Pound, Stephen


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livingstone, Ken
Purchase, Ken


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Lock, David
Radice, Giles


Love, Andrew
Rammell, Bill


McAvoy, Thomas
Rapson, Syd


McCabe, Steve
Raynsford, Nick


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Rendel, David


McDonagh, Siobhain
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Macdonald, Calum



McFall, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McGrady, Eddie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rogers, Allan


McIsaac, Shona
Rooker, Jeff


MacKay, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruane, Chris


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McNulty, Tony
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


MacShane, Denis
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Savidge, Malcolm


Mallaber, Judy
Sawford, Phil


Mallon, Seamus
Sedgemore, Brian


Maples, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin






Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stringer, Graham
Wallace, James


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Ward, Ms Claire


Stunell, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Swinney, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Willis, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Todd, Mark
Wise, Audrey


Touhig, Don
Wood, Mike


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wray, James


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Clive Betts and


Vaz, Keith
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gray, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew



McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Tellers for the Noes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Rev. Ian Paisley and



Mr. Peter Robinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order [17 July].

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act;
(b) the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland;
(c) the issue out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for the making of advances to the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland;
(d) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL GRANT REPORT

That the Special Grant Report (No. 36) (HC 823), which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

That the draft Houses in Multiple Occupation (Charges for Registration Schemes) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL GRANT REPORT (WALES)

That the Special Grant Report (No. 3) (Wales) 1998 (HC 832), which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [17 July],

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (S.I., 1998, No. 1582)

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1582), dated 29th June 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Howard Flight be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mr. John Randall be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — HEALTH COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Lansley be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. David Amess be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Nick Gibb be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Howard Flight be added to the Committee.—Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Waste Disposal (Essex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring before the House the subject of waste disposal in Essex. I have requested this debate in order to discuss waste disposal in, but not by, Essex. Essex disposes of its waste in its own backyard, but the problems experienced in my constituency are caused largely by other counties disposing of their waste in Essex. I believe that they should process it in their own backyards.
My constituency is situated in the south-east corner of Essex. It is the most heavily populated part of the county, and is situated on the north side of the Thames roughly 30 miles from London. It faces across the river to Kent. It is very close to the Dartford crossing, which is part of the M25 ring road and one of the most heavily trafficked areas in the country. For centuries, gravel and sand has been extracted from the river bed along the Thames estuary. That has left many large holes in the ground that are used mostly as landfill sites—although the Lakeside shopping centre is situated in one of them. That shopping centre has parking spaces for 12,000 cars, so one can appreciate the size of the hole.
There is a large waste fill site in Pitsea in my constituency. Others are located in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is in his place, and in the delightfully named Mucking flats. Mucking flats is actually in the constituency of Basildon, but it used to be in my constituency, and, because it has such a wonderful name, I have become particularly fond of it, and often mention it in the House.
My main concern is that the county of Kent, which is perfectly able to dispose of its own rubbish, has refused to open and use new landfill sites. It has twice refused to install incinerators in the county, and has chosen instead to move more rubbish across the Dartford crossing and deposit it in landfill sites in Essex. It already exports half a million tonnes of waste a year to Essex, and its present proposals would double that quantity.
As a result, there would be an additional 200 heavy goods vehicle movements a day on the Dartford crossing. If one adds up those movements during a year, one sees how much traffic that decision would generate in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Thurrock. By 2010, Kent will have no more landfill space, so it will want to export an additional 1.5 million tonnes of waste to surrounding counties.
Most of that rubbish could be processed easily within Kent—if not by landfill then by incineration, as I shall explain later. One can imagine the effect that large numbers of lorries would have on my county, which is already heavily industrialised. Shell Haven is located in Essex, and there are many oil transporter movements. Tilbury docks is situated nearby, and large container lorries move backwards and forwards in the area. We could well do without the extra traffic.
A proposal for a waste from energy incinerator in the Erith and Crayford area of Kent was turned down by Kent county council on the ground that the facility was not

needed. That means that the waste will be transported across the river and dumped in my part of the world. Brian Griffiths, the director of Biffa waste—a major waste servicing company—said:
It is not acceptable that Essex should have to bear the cost of Kent's failure to provide for landfill. This is part of a dangerous trend for waste problems to be shunted from one community to another.
The next problem we have is London, which produces 8 million tonnes of domestic and commercial waste every year. Most of that goes to surrounding counties, including Bedfordshire, but a great deal of it comes down the road into my part of Essex. Over 17,000 tonnes of it is transported by river, which is the sensible way to send it, to Mucking flats, where it is used for landfill. At least that keeps it off the road, but that is only a small part—about 20 per cent.—of the rubbish from London, because 80 per cent. comes by road and generates about 1,000 heavy goods vehicle movements in and around the London area each week.
If that is multiplied by the amount of rubbish coming from Kent, the number of extra vehicles on the roads becomes clear. If the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions really wants to tackle the problem of overuse of the roads, he can well start by dealing with the rubbish that is being moved from one county to another when it could easily be dealt with in the counties that produce the rubbish.
As a result of this transfer of rubbish, anyone travelling along the A13 or Al27—the major roads into my constituency—will see in the hedgerows plastic bags, which are blown out of heavy goods vehicles, many of them uncovered, as they return to Kent or London. The wind gets into the back of the lorry and whips up bags that have been stuck in the vehicle. As a result, black bags adorn the verges. We have some of the filthiest verges in the country, and we are not proud of that. One of my constituents said to me recently, "I am ashamed to invite friends to visit me in Essex because of the filthy state of the roadsides." I understand exactly what she means. The heavy goods vehicles leave a trail of plastic bags that we can do without.
London is one of the main culprits in depositing its waste in other people's backyards. Essex county council will not tolerate this for ever. In fact, it is to stop other counties bringing their waste into Essex by 2011, which is not so very many years away. Essex will look after its own problems, but it will not be taking in rubbish from elsewhere, for which it does not have room.
The opportunities for dealing with rubbish within the county that produces it are well discussed. The opportunities are either recycling, which is very fashionable, or composting, which may help with some domestic waste. In Essex, one can obtain a free composting bin. It is handed out gratis from the county council. I suppose that the bin is put outside one's back door and the kitchen waste is shoved into it. However, only a tiny and trivial amount of the rubbish can be dealt with in that way.
There is the fashionable attitude that a great deal of rubbish can be recycled. Essex is very good at providing sites, and there are 23 major recycling sites in the county. I have been to see those involved in recycling, and I have spoken to the people employed at the recycling sites. Although official figures tell us that 40 per cent. of


rubbish is recyclable, those at the sites tell me that, in truth, only about 20 per cent. of it ends up in the recycling process.
For example, there is no market for waste paper. It is too expensive to recycle it all by extracting the dyes and reusing it. Although people spend time in their cars travelling to recycling sites to dump waste paper, it ends up in landfill sites in the end. They might as well have put it in the dustbin. Apparently, plastic bottles cannot be recycled because there are many different kinds of plastic and it is too expensive to sort them. As a result, they end up in a landfill site.
Although we do our best in Essex to recycle rubbish, that is not the answer. It is an environmentally friendly approach, but it is not the solution.
Richard Sandbrook is a veteran "green", and was once a director of, or some prominent official in, I think, Friends of the Earth. He is now the director of the London-based independent research group, the International Institute for Environment and Development—goodness gracious me, what a title. He wrote an article recently that appeared in the New Scientist. It reads:
Much thinking on recycling is fundamentally flawed because environmentalists refuse to countenance any argument that undermines their sacred cow.
Richard Sandbrook says that
truck movements transporting recyclables
and domestic waste and the car journeys of individual households going to and from the recycling site emit large amounts of the very substances which most people who object to incineration object to—carbon dioxide and all sorts of other bits and pieces. According to his research, they generate as much pollution as anything that is done to incinerate rubbish.
Another gentleman, Matthew Leach, who is an energy policy analyst and a lecturer in environmental technology at Imperial college, wrote a good article in New Scientist in November. He said:
In terms of fossil fuel used to supply one tonne of paper in the UK, virgin paper accounts for roughly half as much energy as recycled paper.
Both pieces of research undermine the idea that recycling is the answer to all our prayers.

Mr. Bob Russell: The previous Conservative Government had national targets for recycled materials. Will the hon. Lady accept from me that collecting recyclable materials from the doorstep, as the council does in Colchester, is the way forward, and that we must recycle more materials? I was with her 100 per cent. when she criticised London and Kent, but I am parting company with her now.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman restates the common perception that recycling can solve this problem, but experts are telling us that it cannot, and that it is a bit of a dream that we can recycle everything. The usual target is 40 per cent., so, by definition, 60 per cent. is not recycled. When we come down to it, only about 20 per cent. is recycled. I had that from the environmental officer in charge of recycling for Essex county council, and I am giving hon. Members his words, not mine.
Incineration is the bugbear. The two incineration plants in London cause no problems in their locality. The plant in Deptford has some of the latest technology, which was installed in 1994, and has no more effect on the community than would an ordinary factory with a chimney. It does not cause great trouble for the local people, there is not a "not in my backyard" attitude towards it, and it produces a genuinely useful product.
The plant caters for Lewisham, Greenwich and other parts of south-east London; material comes from the streets nearby, so long-distance travel is not involved, and it produces electricity and heat energy. The waste product from the incineration is recycled—metals are extracted—and the ash that is left is used in building blocks, which are used for insulating houses, in tarmacking roads or for forming layers in landfill sites so that raw waste is bedded down.
That is an environmentally friendly and useful way of carrying on. There are about 10 of those plants in the country—for example, in Nottingham, Middlesbrough, Dudley and the Tildasley area of Birmingham. There are also several in Sheffield. The technology has been developed in France, where it is extremely widely used by a company called Vivende. Its British offshoot is the south-east London combined heat and power consortium.
The process is tried and tested, and the recycling unit is not a vast factory with a horrible chimney. Although I have never decided to do it, I am assured that a person could sit on the top of the chimney, breathe what comes out and not be damaged. I do not know whether one would last long enough to come down and tell the world about it.
The main problem that people raise is that of dioxins. Those are chemical substances which, allegedly, are not filtered out. In a paper on dioxins and incineration, a leading authority, Professor Andrew Porteous of the Open university, says:
The risk from living near an incinerator is put at 7 in 10 million, something akin to being struck by lightning.
He says that the dioxin release is extremely low—he gives the figure in nanograms, which most of us would not understand. To put it in context, he says that it is the equivalent of throwing a quarter of a sugar cube into Loch Ness. He obviously means to imply that an extremely small risk is involved, once the mechanism for recycling in modern units is understood.
The Government must balance the demand of the environmental lobbyists, with the best will in the world—Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace—against the damage that is done by carting rubbish all over the country, in terms not just of the filthy exhaust fumes produced by the lorries, but the fact that they clutter up the roads. The environmentalists cannot have it both ways. If they are against the amount of traffic on the roads, they should welcome incineration and dealing with rubbish on site.
My constituents are fed up to the back teeth with juggernauts trundling down country lanes on their way to landfill sites. They no longer want to tolerate that. In 10 or 12 years' time, we will not tolerate it. By that time, both London and Kent will have to deal with the problem in their own back yards.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall be brief, because the Minister wants to reply to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for


allowing me to speak in her debate. She has mentioned many places in my constituency, so it is incumbent on me to make some comments.
First, I wholly agree with the hon. Lady about the need to stop the importation of waste into the county borough of Thurrock and the county of Essex from other areas. It is intolerable. My constituency is like a moonscape, having been exploited over many, many decades, and it is time that the exploitation of that part of Essex stopped.
Secondly, although I sign up to the Government's strategy for the Thames gateway, I have some reservations. If the Thames corridor is to be built up, it is legitimate to ask where all the human and household waste will go. The Thames gateway strategy must not be considered in isolation.
My third point is on incineration. The benefits of exploiting new technologies are not incompatible with the need for a recycling strategy. The two are inextricably linked and complementary.
I realise that those on the Treasury Bench are anxious about the raising of matters in my constituency, so my final point is that the Government have an opportunity to have strong green credentials if they make the tipping of waste—landfill—very expensive, as other European countries have, and knock back the rapacious appetite of the aggregates industry, which wants to dig holes and exploit minerals, particularly in the south of Essex. That area has been exploited intolerably for too many decades.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to say that the Government are prepared to say no to the exploitation of my part of Essex, to outline a bold recycling strategy, to use technologies to minimise waste, and to stop the importation of waste from other local authority areas that do not meet their obligations.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I have only about nine minutes to try to deal with these complex questions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing the debate. She clearly believes in slaughtering sacred cows: she did so on global warming the other day, and she is doing it again on recycling. I do not accept her pessimistic view that 20 per cent. is the maximum that can be attained by recycling. I have visited places where much higher levels are achieved. We must decide what is the best environmental option.
I have considerable empathy with the issues that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) have outlined. Essex faces a problem that is common to the south-east of England. Existing landfills, on which the area is heavily reliant, are filling up quickly, suitable new sites are in short supply, and the large landfill site at Mucking will reach the end of its planned life by the end of 2001. That has a significant effect on established patterns of waste disposal.
Established patterns of waste disposal will be affected by the changes identified in our strategy document "Less Waste; More Value". One such change is the landfill directive, which we are currently negotiating with our European partners. It has two main thrusts. In addition to its welcome regulatory aspects, which should ensure a

high standard of landfill engineering and management across the European Union, it will set progressively diminishing limits on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste, down to a maximum of 35 per cent. of the total amount of such waste produced in 1995 by the end of 2020.
Perhaps that is a European directive which the hon. Lady can support. It will ensure that we consider other ways of disposing of waste. Essex has a particular problem because of its closeness to London, where many tonnes of waste are produced.
Those measures will require developments in the treating of wastes by reduction at source, recycling, composting or incineration with energy recovery, which are all in the waste disposal hierarchy. We must plan for the introduction of new technologies and new infrastructures, which will enable us to make progress in meeting what are likely to be stringent targets under European Union directives.
I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerns about the planning advice issued by the London planning advisory committee on waste management and its possible impact on Essex. I stress that that is not a Government proposal, and that its status is advisory. The hon. Lady will know that the plan, on which there have been consultations, proposes a moratorium on the building of new incinerators. It also suggests a high level of recycling—40 per cent. for London's waste, whereas currently only about 8 per cent. is recycled. The plan is very ambitious, and it still has to be discussed by the London boroughs and the outlying areas.
We are considering the advice of the London planning advisory committee, and we shall respond in detail shortly. We have no fundamental difficulty with the aim of the guidance to minimise the amount of waste produced and to increase recycling, but we share the concerns to which the hon. Lady alluded and which have been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about how the proposed ambitious recycling targets, which form the basis of the advice, will be met, and, crucially, what will happen if they are not met.
The London planning advisory committee has proposed a moratorium on all but small capacity incineration. The Government believe that high levels of energy from waste and recycling are compatible, and that they each have their place in the hierarchy of waste disposal. It should be possible for local authorities and other waste producers to ensure that their contracts with energy-from-waste plants allow for successful waste minimisation strategies.
I visited SELCHP, and was impressed by the way in which the project was brought to fruition and the local community was brought on board—a member of the local community sits on the board. It has made a good start, and it is not worried or upset by the idea that London boroughs may be able to achieve high levels of recycling. It believes that that is compatible with its process of incinerating whatever cannot be recycled.
However, as the hon. Lady said, we must consider the environmental effects of all the lorries that trundle around London taking waste to incinerators or landfill tips. I suspect that we must also consider the fact that the River Thames flows to the sea in order to establish what best use can be made of it. At present, waste


flows down the Thames on barges to the Mucking landfill site—although that will stop when the site is filled up.
I recognise Essex county council's concern that London should take responsibility for a greater proportion for its waste, and the need to move away from its current reliance on landfill. I do not think that anyone would argue with that analysis; it is simply a question of how we get there from where we are now in the time available, and that will obviously take time. We are concerned about the development of an integrated strategic approach to waste management in the capital, given the split into 33 London boroughs that was introduced by the last Administration. That fractured the planning, and made it much more difficult for issues of this kind to be dealt with on a strategic basis.
The creation of the Greater London authority is designed to tackle a fragmented and confusing picture. First and foremost, London needs a proper municipal waste strategy, which the new mayor for London will be required to produce. The mayor will be required to develop an integrated municipal waste management strategy for London. In drawing up the plan, he or she will need to have regard to the principles of sustainable development, and the best practicable environmental option.
Such an option must take account of the fact that lorries may be carrying waste around, and of other strategies involving transport, air quality and economic development. He or she will have to consult all bodies affected, including authorities such as Essex and others surrounding London. The mayor will have to take account of the national waste strategy, and the boroughs' waste recycling plans; he or she will also have the power of direction over any non-compliant boroughs. In short, counties such as Essex will be consulted by the mayor as proposals are developed.
In the meantime, I remain concerned that decisions should not be made that close down options for the Greater London authority. There are two concerns. First, the final waste plans of neighbouring areas such as Essex must recognise a continuing need for some landfill outside the capital for treated waste. The GLA will obviously need sufficient time to consider the issue, and to develop its own waste strategy. We would be interested to hear from Essex county council what flexibility there is in its future plans to assist that.
Secondly, we want proper consideration of the issue of river-borne waste transfer. The Thames currently provides an important route for the transport of the capital's waste, keeping some 500 heavy lorry movements a day off London's congested streets. The Government would like to get even more waste off the roads.
"Less Waste; More Value" makes it clear that we are concerned about the risk of increased waste transport. Local authorities should think carefully about the full range of the implications of their decisions on waste—not just the cost and not just the direct impact of waste disposal on the environment, but factors such as emissions resulting from the transport of waste.
I understand that the hon. Member for Billericay and the other Essex Members have been invited by the county council to a briefing meeting on waste issues in Essex, to be held in two days' time. The meeting is designed to discuss the issues raised tonight: the Essex waste plan, the county council's responsibilities and strategies for managing household waste—including increasing recycling and composting—and the continuation of options for limiting future waste imports into Essex from areas such as London and Kent. I urge the hon. Lady to use that occasion to make clear her thoughts on the issue to those responsible for waste management in Essex, as she has made her thoughts clear to the House tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.